Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

WARLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the engines proposed for the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): I am glad to say that the Rolls-Royce RB 199 engine proposals for the M.R.C.A. project were accepted last month by all the countries concerned, subject to the conclusion of satisfactory contract negotiations. The development and production of the engine will be undertaken by a joint company

in which Rolls-Royce will be associated with the German firm of Motoren und Turbinen Union, and the Italian firm of Fiat. An initial contract has already been placed with this new company.

Mr. Wall: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask whether he can say that there will be British participation in the airframe and avionics, as there is common participation in the engine?

Mr. Healey: Airframe participation has been settled. There is major British participation. The avionics are slower to develop, but I am assured there will be no difficulty in British firms getting their fair share.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Are discussions still taking place with other prospective partners about this deal? Are there prospects of sales to third parties in future?

Mr. Healey: There are certainly prospects of sales to third parties, although I doubt whether any countries other than the three at present involved would wish to participate in research and development.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the Press release issued by his department on the 14th May relating to the estimated cost of the multi-rôle combat aircraft.

Mr. Healey: No official Press release was issued by my Department on 14th May relating to the estimated cost of the M.R.C.A.

Mr. Allaun: But on 15th May did not The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph all quote my right hon. Friend by name as estimating the cost at £575 million plus £150 million development costs? Were they imagining it? Is it not seriously undermining parliamentary democracy if information about this vast expenditure is refused us in the House and yet given outside in the Press where it cannot be questioned?

Mr. Healey: If my hon. Friend will look carefully at those reports, he will see that a great deal of background information, including an estimate of cost, has been added by the air correspondents to my personal announcement in the


House. No doubt air correspondents have many sources of background information of this sort. They do not quote their sources, and it is not for me to attempt to do so.

Mr. Booth: Will the combined development costs of this multi-rôle combat aircraft be between £670 million and £1,500 million?

Mr. Healey: I am not in a position to give these costs to the House.

Naval Surface-to-Surface Weapon Systems

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of surface-to-surface weapon systems for the Royal Navy.

The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): We are developing an improved 4·5-inch gun, which will have a better performance than existing guns of this calibre. The Seadart surface-to-air missile system, which is also under development, will have a useful surface-to-surface capability.

Mr. Wall: The Minister's reply shows that there is no such development. Can he explain how he can protect British shipping out of range of land bases against attack from modern Soviet destroyers when carriers have been phased out?

Mr. Morris: We have traversed this ground on innumerable occasions. I set out the case explicitly in the last defence debate.

Middle and Far East (Withdrawal of Forces)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of withdrawal of forces from the Middle and Far East.

Mr. Healey: I refer the hon. Member to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1969—Command 3927. Good progress is being made.

Mr. Marten: On the Middle East, can the Secretary of State say how far the leaders are getting on with their joint force, and, turning to the Far East, is he satisfied that there will be stability in

the Malaysian Peninsula to enable us to withdraw from a military point of view rather than the political point of view?

Mr. Healey: As to the Middle East, progress on the political side has been satisfactory and we hope that it will be possible for the new defence forces of the Union of Arab Emirates to absorb the Trucial Oman Scouts. This has not yet been finally decided. As to international stability, progress in the five-power Commonwealth talks was very satisfactory this summer. There are problems of internal stability which must be the concern of us all but which are not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

Anglo-French Nuclear Force

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the French Government about an Anglo-French nuclear force.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards the co-ordination of the British and French nuclear forces.

Mr. Healey: I have nothing to add to the very full statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 25th July.—[Vol. 787, c. 2378–82.]

Mr. Marten: If this question of the Anglo-French nuclear deterrent came up, for example, in the Common Market negotiations, what would be the Government's attitude towards such a proposal?

Mr. Healey: The difficulty is to know what sort of proposal the hon. Member has in mind. The central problem, as I made clear when the Leader of the Opposittion ventilated this idea two years ago, is to know whether such a force would be inside or outside of N.A.T.O. There seems to be no chance of the present French Government, so long as it holds to its present policy, agreeing to such a force being inside N.A.T.O. To have such a force outside N.A.T.O. would be deeply damaging to the solidarity of the Alliance.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Would it not be hypocrisy if we were to proceed with the joint nuclear force on the one hand and back non-proliferation on the other?

Mr. Healey: I do not know how wise I am to answer these hypothetical questions, but the fact is that co-operation between Britain and France in this sphere, as they are both nuclear Powers, would not be affected in any way by the non-proliferation treaty.

Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is the will on the part of both Governments a great deal more practical co-operation is possible? Will he tell the House what the Government's proposition is?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows something of these matters, must accept that any attempt to build such a force outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would be a sheer disaster for the solidarity of the Alliance, and there is currently no prospect of building such a force inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite must face this fact.

Singapore (Communications Equipment)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in disposing to Australia and New Zealand the communications equipment at present in use in Singapore.

Mr. Healey: This matter is under discussion with the Australian and New Zealand staffs in Singapore, with the object of ensuring that they are able to meet their requirements for communications facilities. I am confident that satisfactory arrangements can be made.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this complex of communications is of a very special value not only to ourselves but to others? Can he explain how it is that we are not applying to our negotiations with Australia and New Zealand in this respect the same attitude of mind as we are over certain installations which we have, in my view rightly, given to Singapore and Malaysia, whereas we propose making a charge in the case of communications?

Mr. Healey: I think that I would be in very serious trouble with the Public Accounts Committee if I agreed that we

gave away to anybody who asked for it any equipment that happened to be in Malaysia and Singapore. Fixed installations—things that cannot be moved from Malaysia and Singapore—and equipment necessary to make them operable are being handed over free of charge to the Malaysian and Singapore Governments if they wish to use them for defence or economic purposes. But the equipment to which the hon. Gentleman refers is largely movable operational equipment of great sophistication and complexity, and there is no reason why Governments that wish to use it rather than ourselves should not pay for it.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that under the present Government there is a need for a general capability in that part of the world and also for major exercises, and that sophisticated communications are essential for both these operational needs? If Australia cannot pay the very large sum being asked of her for the equipment, will the right hon. Gentleman leave it on a care and maintenance basis so that it can be used for the purposes to which the Government are committed?

Mr. Healey: That is another hypothetical question, and I do not accept the hypothesis. The negotiations on this matter between Britain and the other Governments concerned are proceeding satisfactorily. I have no reason to doubt that the communications equipment required will be available on the terms we suggest.

Far East (Military Exercises)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the military exercises to test the mobility of British forces in the Far East will start.

Mr. Healey: Exercises to test the mobility of British forces in the Far East are taking place all the time. The major Commonwealth exercise is planned to take place in Malaysia in the summer of 1970.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is not that exercise intended to show that we can operate our general capability to intervene by bringing British troops to


Malaysia unacclimatised and making them instantly operational? If the results of the exercise show that, as medical opinion believes, to be faulty, will it change Government policy?

Mr. Healey: We have here another hypothetical question. We have planned the exercise to prove that we can take troops out fast and in a condition to be able to participate in a major Commonwealth operation, and I have no doubt at all, having seen something of the plans for the exercise, that the demonstration will be effective and very encouraging to our Commonwealth partners.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the necessary equipment and facilities will be there when the troops are sent out?

Mr. Healey: To a large extent we shall be taking out the equipment, because this is essential to demonstrate that we have the capability to take it there. Some facilities already there will be used. As I told the House on a previous occasion, the forces already in the Far East will primarily be playing the rôle of the enemy in the exercise.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the proposed exercise in the spring the troops will be kept six weeks to acclimatise before being committed to the Malaysian jungle? Is not this a fact?

Mr. Healey: I cannot comment on details of the exercise, because they are still being worked out. We have not yet, for example, had full details of the troops the four other Commonwealth countries plan to commit to the exercise.

Beira Patrol

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution has been made, or is to be made, by other members of the United Nations towards the cost of the Beira patrol; and what requests for such contributions have been, or are to be, made by Her Majesty's Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): None, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are the reports true that the ships have been withdrawn, or are the Government continuing this costly charade, which is having no effect whatever on either subduing the Rhodesians or impelling them to fruitful negotiations?

Dr. Owen: The reports are not true, and the ships are on patrol. The patrol has been fully effective in cutting off the most direct route for the supply of oil to Rhodesia. As a result, the pipeline to Rhodesia and the refinery at Umtali have been closed.

Mr. John Lee: Will the Government consider, as a contribution towards the cost, sequestering the property in this country of Rhodesians who are in a state of rebellion?

Dr. Owen: That is a question which should properly be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

TAVR II

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of recruits to the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve II are issued with 1945 pattern uniform.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): None, Sir.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his recruiting posters show modern equipment, whereas I can give him details of recruits who are being equipped with the 1945 pattern equipment? Would he look into this?

Mr. Richard: If the hon. Gentleman has details of troops in the TAVR II, which is what the Question refers to, being equipped with the 1945 battledress, perhaps he will let me have them.

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what increases in infantry battalion equipment have been made to the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve II units where an additional company has been added in the recent re-organisation.

Mr. Richard: The additional companies have been formed within the infantry battalions' establishments. Each


battalion has its full scale of equipment and there is therefore no need to increase it.

Mr. Allason: If there is the equivalent of an additional company added to a battalion, surely it needs further equipment? Is the Minister satisfied with the position where a platoon has no mortar, no wireless and too few rifles?

Mr. Richard: The additional companies are within the battalions' establishment, and the battalions are properly equipped. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific matter in mind, perhaps he will let me have the details and I will look at it.

Pembroke Aircraft

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for a Pembroke replacement for the Royal Air Force;
(2) how many Pembroke aircraft are at present in service with the Royal Air Force; how many of these are now grounded; and how many are to be resparred.

Mr. John Morris: Of the R.A.F.'s effective stock of 26 Pembrokes, 19 are grounded as a result of the discovery, earlier this summer, of micro-cracks in the main spar assembly. Possible solutions, including resparring, are being studied and we hope to reach a decision shortly.

Mr. Onslow: Are we to understand that the seven other aircraft are being flown? If so, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied of their safety? Would it not be a great deal more economic to provide the R.A.F. with a modern communications and casualty evacuation aircraft?

Mr. Morris: I am satisfied that the aircraft being flown are flown with safety. Those aircraft which have been grounded are grounded as a measure of safety. We are looking at the possible solutions—and there are more than one—to meet this contingency.

Third London Airport (Contingency Plans)

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are his contingency plans with regard to the operational

aircraft stations at Royal Air Force, Wyton, and United States Air Force, Alconbury, and with regard to the Royal Aeronautical Establishment, Thurleigh, in the event of Thurleigh being chosen to be the Third London Airport.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): It is not the practice to disclose contingency plans for the movement of operational flying tasks. I can however assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if Thurleigh were chosen and if it became necessary to move tasks from the R.A.F. stations at Wyton and Alconbury, they would go to other stations that are expected to be available at the time.
The Royal Aeronautical Establishment at Thurleigh is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Sir D. Renton: But would it not cost millions of pounds and cause great inconvenience to move these three important establishments, and would it not be better to say here and now to the Roskill Commission that because of the expense and inconvenience it would do much better to drop the proposal that Thurleigh should be the third London airport?

Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir. The object of the Commission is to look objectively at and report to the Government on the advantages and disadvantages of a number of sites. That makes it quite impossible for any Government Department or the Government as a whole to comment on the advantages or disadvantages of one or the other, even if they subscribe to the views the right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, which we do not necessarily do.

Naval Dockyard Workers (Pay and Productivity)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the pay and productivity deal for naval dockyard workers.

Mr. John Morris: Negotiations on a productivity deal in the Royal Dockyards are about to be resumed following the recent announcement of new basic pay rates which have been agreed with the trades unions.

Mr. Judd: I thank my hon. Friend for news of the improved basic pay, but can he assure us that the dockyard workers will never again be allowed to fall so badly behind comparable earnings in outside industry, and also that the productivity discussions will not be taken as an excuse to whittle away the improvement in basic pay?

Mr. Morris: I recognise the part which my hon. Friend has played and his sustained interest in these matters, and I pay tribute to him for that. The award itself, an interim award, is a very satisfactory one, and I hope that it will restore the good will which is so necessary in the dockyards. I hope also that the productivity negotiations will now be pressed ahead and brought to a conclusion.

Naval Dockyards (Chief Executive)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the appointment of the chief executive for the naval dock-yards.

Mr. John Morris: Mr. Leslie Norfolk took up the post of chief executive of the Royal Dockyards on 2nd September. He will be responsible to the Admiralty Board for the overall management of the dockyards at Chatham, Devonport, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Gibraltar. This appointment was foreshadowed in paragraph 43(a) of Chapter VIII of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1969.

Mr. Judd: What will the effect be on local management, and, in particular, will opportunity be taken to examine the growing anxiety among skilled and unskilled workers that administrative overheads in the yards are too high?

Mr. Morris: These are matters for Mr. Norfolk to investigate. He has started on his appointment, and, as my hon. Friend knows, he will be responsible for the management of the dockyards and the general managers will be subordinate to him. I had the opportunity of visiting Portsmouth in his company, and I was glad to see the courtesy and, indeed, cordiality with which he was welcomed by both management and men.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been concluded with the Government

of Northern Ireland apropos the costs involved of the presence of British troops to maintain law arid order in that province.

Mr. Healey: The arrangements are those which apply on the rare occasions when the Services are called in similar circumstances to the assistance of the civil power anywhere in the United Kingdom: that is to say, the defence budget will bear the costs of tasks attributable to the preservation of law and order.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the off-duty accommodation and with the normal welfare facilities which ought to be provided for our troops in Northern Ireland? Second, is he satisfied that the amount of leave, in such a tense situation, is sufficient for our troops?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir; I am not satisfied in either regard, and I spoke at length on these matters in winding up the debate on Monday. I also indicated the steps which Her Majesty's Government are taking, in conjunction with the Government in Northern Ireland, to improve, in particular, the accommodation, which is the greatest single problem at the moment.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Secretary of State consider one possible way of improving living accommodation for our troops as a matter of urgency; namely, that large caravans, which are best described as mobile homes and could be obtained off the shelf, as it were, could be sent over to Northern Ireland for the use of the troops?

Mr. Healey: I said in reply to the debate on Monday that that is one of the possibilities. In fact, it is one of the steps which we envisage taking to deal with the special problem of what I would call operational accommodation in areas where troops are on active riot duties, areas which may change from day to day.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are currently in Northern Ireland; and how soon it is expected to withdraw them.

Mr. Healey: Some 9,800 of all three Services, including some 4,900 army personnel and 600 Royal Marines, whose


presence is solely due to the present situation in Northern Ireland. These will be withdrawn as and when their presence is no longer required for the maintenance of law and order and the security of the Province.

Mr. Hamilton: As these troops are likely to be there for years rather than months, is it not important that their morale should be maintained at a high level, and is that not likely to become increasingly difficult as the months and years go by? Will my hon. Friend read the article in The Times this morning about not only living conditions but the inadequate pay supplement which he has suggested and review it with a view to increasing it?

Mr. Healey: I have read the article in The Times today, and I dealt with these very problems at length in my speech on Monday. I should strongly welcome my hon. Friend's support for any increase in the defence budget, but I have not had it absolutely consistently over the last five years.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he was taking a risk in the rundown of the size of our forces. Do not the serious repercussions which have resulted in other theatres as a consequence of this contingency show that they are already at a deplorably low level? As he is planning a further rundown, and as he has no uncommitted reserves at all, will the Secretary of State now cease the rundown until the matter has been reviewed?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman should know, as I said in the House on Monday, that there has been no repercussion so far on other theatres. I said that if there were a requirement for further forces we might have to draw on forces committed to B.A.O.R. When I came into office in 1964 I found that the level of manning in units in B.A.O.R. under the previous Government was 3,000 lower than it is today because units had been deliberately undermanned in order to provide forces for commitments outside Europe—in the Far East and Middle East.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: How many units has the Secretary of State left in the Strategic Reserve here, and is it true that troops in Germany are now doing

riot training in order to be prepared to be committed to Ulster?

Mr. Healey: I will not give the figures of men in the Strategic Reserve in this country. No Secretary of State would ever do so. The 3rd Division is complete in the Strategic Reserve at present. The Strategic Reserve as such has hardly been touched so far in the operation, but we are training some companies in Germany in case it is necessary to draw on them to relieve some of the forces now in Northern Ireland when their four-month tour is completed. This is the sort of measure which any provident Government would take; it has many parallels in the activities of the previous Adminisration during their 13 years of power.

Mr. McNamara: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the rate of withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland will depend largely on the degree of peace-keeping which the police forces in Northern Ireland can undertake, and, therefore, what one wants is a speedy implementation of the Hunt Report, and, in particular, that it is desirable that the pressures which are building up in Northern Ireland at the moment to impede or modify that Report should be firmly resisted?

Mr. Healey: As I made clear when I visited Northern Ireland a month ago, it will not be possible to withdraw the troops until the local police are able to take back the responsibilities which they surrendered to the troops some time ago. They will not be able to do that until they are acceptable to all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, and it is the purpose of the Hunt Report to produce a police force of that type. It is not for me to comment on the reception which the Hunt Report has had in Northern Ireland, but I am satisfied that the Government in Northern Ireland recognise, as do the British Government, the urgency of taking early action in carrying out its recommendations.

Mr. Rippon: Will the Secretary of State agree that the total manpower available to him is far less than it was in 1964, and will he agree that in those circumstances he ought to halt the rundown of the forces and take immediate steps to restore the Territorial Army as the second line of reserves?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir, I do not, because although the total is somewhat smaller than it was in 1964—I think it is about 10 per cent. smaller—our commitments have already been reduced by 30 per cent. and will have been reduced by about 50 per cent. when the rundown is complete.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop prating about 3,000 more?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will give an assurance that the special contingent of British troops will remain in Northern Ireland until guarantees of equality and civil liberties for all subjects in the province are achieved and all forms of discriminatory practices are made illegal by the Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Healey: The additional troops will be withdrawn from their present special duties in Belfast and Londonderry when their presence is no longer required for the maintenance of law and order. There will continue to be a permanent garrison in Northern Ireland, the size of which will have to be reviewed.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful for the latter part of that reply. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that I hope that he will not take too much notice of some of the criticisms made of British troops by that curious alleged Christian called Paisley and of some of the bizarre utterances from what I believe are termed "Unionist Conservative" Members of this House who have contributed so much, by negligence of their duty to see that civil rights were established in Northern Ireland, to the present situation? Will my right hon. Friend therefore not allow British troops to be denigrated by Tories opposite?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions prevent other hon. Members from asking questions.

Mr. Healey: If I may say so to my hon. Friend, I think that the whole tenor of the debate last Monday showed that there is the deepest admiration on both sides of the House, and, I think, in all

quarters, for the behaviour of our troops in Northern Ireland in what are some of the most difficult situations they have ever had to operate in.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As a strong defender of the British troops in Northern Ireland, I suggest that the Secretary of State might consider paying the fare of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to Northern Ireland where he might not only perhaps encourage some British troops but see all aspects of this delicate controversy and thereafter refrain from putting such myopic and sometimes dangerous questions?

Mr. Healey: I do not know whether I am really intended to answer the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) but perhaps I may take the opportunity to apologise for misleading the House in an answer earlier. Five of the nine battalions of the 3rd Division are in Northern Ireland, contrary to statements made by hon. Members opposite.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The Secretary of State made a categorical statement that no troops in the 3rd Division had been touched. We knew this to be another deceit——

An Hon. Member: Withdraw.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It was. I do not withdraw. This statement was made half an hour ago.

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the use of the word "deceit" in that context cannot be parliamentary.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I withdraw "deceit" and use "cheated".

Mr. Healey: If I had had any intention of misleading the House I would not have corrected my earlier statement. I think that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) must be overexcited, because he has forgotten that he himself said that there were no troops left in Britain at all. I have just pointed out that four battalions of the 3rd Division are still on this side of the Irish Sea.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for issuing additional anti-riot equipment to the soldiers carrying out internal security duties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Healey: None at present.

Mr. Goodhart: As the Army is almost entirely dependent on C.S. gas for riot control, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to develop or purchase any more sophisticated anti-riot weapons for the future?

Mr. Healey: What the hon. Gentleman states is not at all the case. The C.S. gas is used only when other methods are inappropriate and when the alternative to using it is the use of batons or bullets, which, in one or two cases, has unfortunately proved to be necessary. The forces in Northern Ireland have a full range of sophisticated equipment, and I cannot think of anywhere in the world where so few troops are dealing with riots on such a large scale with so little damage to human life.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Have the paratroops sent to Northern Ireland been trained in anti-riot practices? Will the right hon. Gentleman perhaps consider making another apology to the House, because he said that no troops had been withdrawn from B.A.O.R.? Surely the parachute troops are committed to B.A.O.R. but are now serving in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Healey: The Parachute Brigade is not committed to B.A.O.R., as I have said on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Well, to N.A.T.O.

Gibraltar (Combined Forces Exercises)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the combined forces exercises in Gibraltar in August.

Mr. Hattersley: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to Exercise Rock Climb, which took place on 7th and 8th August. This was one of a series of exercises conducted by the Gibraltar garrison, and on this occasion 41 Commando, embarked in H.M.S. Bulwark, also participated for the purpose of training in assault techniques. The forces defending Gibraltar included elements of the 2nd Battalions of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Royal Anglian Regiment, the Gibraltar Regiment

and 60 Field Squadron, Royal Engineers. H.M.S. Eskimo and R.A.F. Hunter aircraft also participated.

Mr. Jeger: Will my hon. Friend agree that these exercises and the subsequent well-timed appearance of the Navy off the Rock afforded great comfort to the residents of Gibraltar? Does he intend to hold further exercises in the spring?

Mr. Hattersley: I agree only that the intention of the exercises was purely military. If there are further exercises in the spring, or at any other time, they will still be intended to obtain a military rather than a political result.

Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the arrival of virtually the whole of the Spanish Navy off the Rock in recent weeks, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that British naval forces now available, comprising, I understand, one aircraft carrier, fully equipped, and two frigates, are sufficient to meet any threat to the Rock which may develop?

Mr. Hattersley: I think that all the evidence suggests that we are able to meet that sort of threat, but I do not think there is much evidence to suggest that we might have to.

Departmental Posts (Cardiff)

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to move his Department to the Cardiff area; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Hattersley: The dispersal of Ministry of Defence posts from London to Cardiff was first announced by my right hon. Friend on 22nd November, 1967. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend's Answer of 3rd April of this year.—[Vol. 754, c. 368; Vol. 781, c. 180.]

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a Select Committee queried the efficiency of having part of the Admiralty at Bath and part in London? As we now have an enormously inflated headquarters organisation of the three Services in London, would it not be better to streamline that first and try to get the parts together so that we get the higher efficiency to the need for which the Select Committee drew attention?

Mr. Hattersley: I am aware of what the Select Committee said and I am also aware of the obligation placed on the Government to produce as much employment as they can in the regions, and our dispersal to Cardiff is part of that policy. As the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question contains a hypothesis which is so wildly untrue as to be farcical, there is no point in my commenting on the conclusions he draws from it.

Hebrides Rocket Range (Lobster Fishing)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions on fishing for lobsters have been proposed by Her Majesty's Government owing to the extension of the Hebrides rocket range.

Mr. Richard: For safety reasons it has been necessary to increase slightly the size of the Hebrides range danger area. When the development of the range is complete it will be used more frequently and for a greater variety of weapons than during the past eleven years. For this reason it will at times be necessary to have the majority of the danger area clear between 11 a.m. and about 5 p.m. on not more than five days a week. Arrangements are being made to allow the lobster fishermen maximum access to the danger area whenever possible.

Mr. Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety and consternation that there has been in the Hebrides and on the West Coast of Scotland during the Recess among fishermen whose livelihood is affected? While it seems that revised proposals have recently been put forward, should not the whole subject have been handled with much more understanding by the Government? For example, why was the Press first banned from one of the meetings and later admitted after a change of mind?

Mr. Richard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms for a moment. He spoke of the way in which the matter has been handled during the Recess. He ought to know that a liaison committee has been established between the Ministry of Defence and the local fishermen to deal with precisely these difficulties.

Mr. Manuel: Can my hon. Friend say whether the economic repercussions

of these proposals were discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland and whether information on the economic side, available to the Scottish Office, was considered before hard decisions were made?

Mr. Richard: I cannot state what negotiations and discussions took place between the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Office. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the range brings into the islands each year about £200,000 worth of civilian wages, which is about five times the value of the lobster harvest from all the waters around the islands.

Libya

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether British forces in Libya are to remain in that country; and for what purpose.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the future availability of training and other defence facilities in Libya.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what future arrangements have been made about British bases in Libya.

Mr. Healey: We look forward to continuing our co-operation with the Libyan Government in all fields including the defence sphere where the presence of our forces and their training rôle is of mutual benefit to both countries. We have no bases in Libya.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the treaty with the present Libyan Government provide for the defence of Libya? As the present Libyan Government has associated itself with Cairo in declaring war on the State of Israel, is there not some complication here which perhaps could be disentangled by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Healey: I will do my best to disentangle any complications I discover.

Mr. Lane: In view of the uncertainty over Libya, will the Government look again at the desirability of retaining some kind of training facilities in the Persian Gulf area after 1971?

Mr. Healey: I do not believe that this would be the answer if the unfortunate contingency of which the hon. Gentleman is thinking arose.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked my right hon. Friend a question, but he has not ventured to give me a reply.

Mr. Speaker: That is not unknown in the history of Parliament.

Mr. Henig: In view of the British Government's policy of keeping some kind of balance in the delivery of arms to the Middle East, and in view of the change of regime in Libya, is Libya now considered part of the Middle East for the purpose of keeping this balance in arms supply?

Mr. Healey: That is a completely different question. If my hon. Friend will put it down, I will see what I can do about answering it.

Mr. James Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what part of the consignment of Chieftain tanks to Libya had been delivered before the change of Government and whether there has been any change in the contractual arrangements?

Mr. Healey: That is a totally different question which has nothing to do with any of these three Questions.

Middle East

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with defence measures in the Middle East for the protection of British interests in the event of a renewal of war between the Arab States and the State of Israel.

Mr. Shinwell: I hope I get better luck with this Question than I did with No. 24.

Mr. Healey: I am sorry to dampen my right hon. Friend's hopes.
I am not prepared to speculate about hypothetical situations. It is in no one's interest that there should be another war.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not that a hypothetical answer? What is the matter with my right hon. Friend? Is he unaware that the situation in the Middle East is highly inflammatory and that our interests may be assailed at some time? What is

to safeguard our interests? Has he any idea about that at all?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. I have many ideas about it, but, as my right hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is deeply engaged in the four-Power talks whose purpose is to try to bring a permanent settlement of the Middle East problem. I am certain that in this task he will have the support of both sides of the House, including my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Rippon: Does the Secretary of State sometimes consider that there may be a need for what is called contingency planning? Does he regard every military question as hypothetical? Whatever happened there, however hypothetical, what troops or forces should we have available?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as so often, is confusing two completely different matters. My archives are stacked with contingency plans of all types, but I am no more prepared than any previous Minister of Defence to reveal them to the world at large. Answering hypothetical questions in the House is totally different from considering hypothetical contingencies, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman in 20 years' time, if he ever comes to occupy my post, may discover.

Mr. Rankin: Have we gone into Libya without assuming any commitments or proposing to assume any?

Mr. Healey: We have a mutual defence treaty with Libya.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the overall situation in the Mediterranean? Remembering the facilities available at Malta, have there been any discussions with the Maltese Government with a view to retaining additional facilities which might be useful at a future date at very little cost?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir, this question has not arisen.

European Economic Community (Nuclear and Conventional Military Co-operation)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to develop nuclear and conventional military co-operation with signatory States of the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Healey: The European Economic Community is not a defence institution. We work towards closer co-operation in European defence matters within the framework of the Alliance and we have made important progress during the last two years.

Mr. Biffen: As a great deal of stress is now being laid on the supposed political advantages of joining the Common Market, and defence is one aspect of political involvement, would it not be helpful to the House if the right hon. Gentleman gave us some idea of what prospects he thought there were for nuclear co-operation with the signatory States of the Treaty of Rome, and particularly Germany?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman does not attend defence debates as regularly as do some other hon. Members. If he did, he would know that I have dealt at length with this problem on at least two occasions in earlier debates this year. I hope that he was present during my exchange with hon. Members who raised the question of Anglo-French co-operation. The important question is that we are developing extremely intimate links with the non-nuclear European members of the Alliance through the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. It would be disastrous to jeopardise the progress made in this connection by discussing the establishment of some nuclear arrangement outside N.A.T.O.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House who are supporters of Britain's entry into the E.E.C. do not, nevertheless, in any circumstances wish it to be a condition of entry that we should have any nuclear arrangements with Europe?

Mr. Healey: I do not fully understand the purport of my hon. Friend's statement. We are, of course, deeply engaged in nuclear co-operation with all our allies in N.A.T.O., because nuclear weapons are an essential element of the strategy of N.A.T.O. But I understand very well what I take it my hon. Friend was meaning to say—that he would not wish entry into the Common Market to be conditional upon the establishment of a European nuclear force.

Royal Naval Air Station, Arbroath

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of his consideration of alternative future uses for the facilities of the Royal Naval Air Station, Arbroath.

Dr. Owen: Studies on the possible future use of Arbroath are not yet complete but I hope to be able to make a statement before long.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: These delays are becoming abusive. It is now less than nine months before the Royal Navy is due to leave. It is not the case that the Royal Marine Commandos are anxious to go to this station? It is widely believed in the area that that is so. If it is so, may we have an assurance that the Ministry will do nothing to prevent their doing so?

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman should give credit for the considerable and serious work which is being put into this matter. The Fleet Air Arm will leave H.M.S. Condor on 31st March, 1971. The question of the use of the station by the Royal Marines is one of the options we are considerating. We a re fully aware of the concern felt in Arbroath but the most important thing is to get the right solution.

Internal Security Duties (Training)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the amount of training in internal security duties given to forces stationed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Healey: Training requirements are kept under constant review and adjusted as appropriate.

Mr. Goodhart: As the British Army is strained and stretched, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, by dealing with a tragic but comparatively straightforward internal security problem in Northern Ireland, should it not be considering reviewing its internal security tactics as well as its internal security training? In view of the evidence, will the right hon. Gentleman revise his misguided policy of running down the Army by disbanding major units?

Mr. Healey: The stretch in the forces at present does not compare with the stretch they were enduring in 1964, under the Conservative Government, who were not then facing a situation in Northern Ireland which at the moment is soaking up nearly 10,000 men. There is no comparison between the situation now and the situation then. However, the internal security tactics are continuously under review, and the fact that the Army was able to arrest so many of those responsible for the trouble last weekend is a tribute to the new tactical organisation it has developed.

Service and Civilian Personnel

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the ratio of uniformed personnel in the three armed forces to the total number of uniformed civilian personnel in the head-quarters organisation in October, 1964, and October, 1969, respectively.

Mr. Hattersley: 18·8 to 1 in 1964 and 24·8 to 1 in 1969.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures are being adjusted by people being posted officially to strengths of units outside London while continuing to work at headquarters? This—I am afraid I have to use the same word again—is cheating. Can we have the actual numbers, including those posted to other establishments, who still work at headquarters?

Mr. Hattersley: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he does not ask the right questions. But now that he has asked a different question in the form of a supplementary, I will be happy to answer it. I can tell him now that, allowing for the transfers, the figure of 18.8 to 1 in 1964 would have been 27·0 to 1.

Absent Boy Soldiers

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why boy soldiers absent from their units have their belongings sold by auction without their parents being given notice or consenting.

Mr. Richards: If my hon. Friend has an individual case in mind, perhaps he would write to me, but I can tell him that in general we do our best to keep in close touch with parents.

Mr. Rose: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is an outmoded practice based upon concepts which are at least 50 years out of date? Will he take it from me that this has happened, and will he ensure that in future cases where boys are missing from their units their parents will be informed before their belongings are sold?

Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend will know that one of the Queen's Regulations provides that a commanding officer must notify the parents of an absentee junior after three days' absence. If there are specific instances where this has not taken place, I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend.

C.S. Gas

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are in force for those military units in Great Britain or overseas holding stocks of C.S. to ensure that stocks are not released to police or other civilian users except on evidence that these users are instructed in the use of C.S. devices.

Mr. Healey: None. It is normal practice for police forces to obtain their supplies of C.S. direct from the manufacturers; only in exceptional circumstances which would need Ministry of Defence authority are issues made from Army stocks. In no circumstances would C.S. be issued to civilian users other than police.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the contrast between non-military units in Londonderry which, through no fault of their own, were uninstructed in firing these things and, on the other hand, the Army units in Belfast which, in similar circumstances, found that it was sufficient to discharge only seven—a contrast greatly to the credit of the Army—is there not a case, if an emergency arises and it is found necessary to discharge these things, for this to be done by armed forces which are instructed in their use, instead of handing them over to other people?

Mr. Healey: Questions of how the police behave are not for me. During the original Londonderry riots, where a very large number of cartridges and grenades were fired, the police were not under the command of the Army. They


had been instructed—although I regret to say that there had not been time to give them detailed instruction—in the use of C.S. gas. At that time they were using C.S. gas issued by the Army rather than C.N. gas, which is a great deal more toxic, and no blame can be attached to them on that account. Since then, the police have come under the G.O.C. Northern Ireland, and they are getting much more detailed instruction in the use of C.S. gas. As my hon. Friend will recognise, in incidents in which the R.U.C. have used gas since the events in Londonderry, they have observed exactly the same restraint as the armed forces.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Londonderry the police withstood for six hours, from 6 p.m. till midnight, a hail of stones and petrol bombs in a vicious and sustained attack before firing one canister of C.S. gas in their defence, whereas recently in Belfast a church parade not intent on violence had C.S. canisters thrown at it by the police? Will the Minister ensure that in a situation as tense as that in Northern Ireland, where it is easy for mistakes to be made, this gas is not used in such a way as to lead to a hardening of attitudes and retaliation?

Mr. Healey: The House must first of all recognise that C.S. gas is used only when it is preferable to using batons or bullets. Unpleasant as the consequences of C.S. gas are, I think most of us would prefer to have sore eyes for 10 minutes rather than be maimed by bullets for life. As to the events in Londonderry in August, these are the subject of an inquiry by Mr. Justice Scarman, and, with respect, I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would be wise to suspend judgment on these events till he presents his report.

Mr. Orme: Despite my right hon. Friend's reference to the Scarman tribunal, before which some of us have given evidence, may I ask whether he is aware that some of us were present in Londonderry on 14th August when we saw the use, or misuse, of this gas against the civilian population, and may I say that the control which the Army has exercised in these events since then is worthy of compliment? I hope that in future there will be very careful thought before this gas is used against civilians

and that it will be used only in the most extreme circumstances.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not think it is for me to comment on the behaviour of the police, for whom I am not responsible. Both sides of the House recognise that more recently C.S. gas has been used as it should be used, in the last resort and with great discrimination.

Portland Navy Base (Workers' Wages)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the basic wage receivable by workers at Portland navy base; what representations have recently been received by him; what demonstrations took place in Portland in August; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Owen: Negotiations on new pay rates for the Industrial Civil Service were already in progress when a partial stoppage of work took place in Portland Naval Base on 15th August. New rates have since been agreed with the trade unions. They range from f13 10s. 0d. for a 40 hour week for unskilled labourers to £20 16s. 0d., for craftsmen grade I.

Mr. King: In this year is not £13 10s. as minimum take-home pay an outrageous wage to offer? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these steady and reliable men have a genuine grievance? Is there any reason why the Government should be the worst employer in the area?

Dr. Owen: I do not believe the Government are the worst employer. These new rates have been agreed by the trade unions, and there is the prospect of productivity negotiations which are now pending.

Zambia (Seconded Personnel)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service personnel are seconded for service to the Zambian Government; for what purpose and at what cost to the British Government.

Mr. Healey: In January of this year the number of Servicemen on loan to the Zambian Government was 140. As the


House was informed on 25th June, the Zambian Government have requested that the British joint Services training team should be withdrawn at the end of this year and personnel have been phased out as tours of duty have expired. The Army element was, in fact, phased out by July of this year. The number of R.A.F. personnel on loan at 30th September was 65, and these will be phased out by the end of the year. The training team has been helping with the training and development of the Zambian Army and Air Force. The contribution by Her Majesty's Government to the total cost of this assistance during the current financial year is likely to be in the region of £300,000.—[Vol. 785, c. 1477–8.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

British Petroleum and Standard Oil Company, Ohio

Dr. Bray: asked the Minister of Technology if he will examine the implications for United States owned industry in Great Britain of the action by the United States Department of Justice in opposing the purchase by British Petroleum of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio, which will still leave much the greater part of the United States oil industry under United States control.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): We are following closely the development of B.P.'s operations in the United States and hope that this merger will soon be completed satisfactorily. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has received assurances from the United States Secretary of State, and the Chairman of B.P. has had talks with the U.S. Attorney-General in which the latter assured him that the United States Department of Justice has no intention of discriminating against B.P. as a foreign company. These talks have led the Chairman of B.P. to believe that a solution will be found which will bring the merger within the guide lines set out by the Department of Justice last year.
Speculation about the implications of the B.P.—Sohio case for United States owned industry in this country would not

be appropriate at the present time. My hon. Friend will be aware that each case of inward investment into the United Kingdom is considered on its merits. The report of a major study instituted in 1967 by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade into the effects of inward investment in the United Kingdom is expected shortly.

Dr. Bray: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply is very welcome and that it is most important that this merger should go through to enable B.P. to exploit its finds in Alaska? If by any chance it were not to go through, it would be a very serious setback to international investment in general.

Mr. Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Government are keeping the matter closely under review. He and the House will appreciate that at this stage the less said on this matter probably the better.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my hon. Friend accept the view of a number of people concerned about this matter that, although he is pursuing his investigation thoroughly, it must be made quite clear that if this merger were not allowed it would be bound to have some repercussions in the way that American industry is treated in this country?

Mr. Williams: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about this, but he must appreciate that this country, like others, has its own restrictions on inward investment and that in this case it appears that there is no question of discrimination and that it is purely a matter of trying to meet the guide lines, as foreign industry in this country has to meet the guide lines laid down by our Government.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House that long questions and long answers prevent some hon. Member who expected to have his Question answered from having it answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Fishing (Hunter Report)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet ready to make a statement on the Hunter Report on fishing.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): No, Sir.

Mr. Campbell: As it is more than three years since the report was presented to the Government, may I ask what action the Secretary of State is proposing to take on a pilot scheme for the new recommended method of taking salmon from each river? Further, will the Minister state whether the Government are taking any action on the recommendations concerning brown trout, which would greatly assist the Scottish tourist trade?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts it down as a separate Question. On the second part, the report has to be treated as a whole. The reason for the delay is that our consultations have been extremely wide, involving the principal organisations. I am sorry to report that there have been wide differences of opinion about how to apply the report. We are trying to resolve them.

PUBLIC SECTOR PURCHASING

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on public sector purchasing.
As the House will recall, in May 1967 the Government published a White Paper—Cmnd 3291—on Public Purchasing and Industrial Efficiency. Among the objectives outlined were the use of public sector purchasing to promote standardisation, including the improvement of British standards and their alignment wherever possible with internationally acceptable standards; reduction in the number of similar varieties of products purchased in the interests both of economy and efficiency in production; and, where appropriate, increased co-ordination of purchasing in the public sector.
The White Paper was primarily concerned with purchasing by the central Government, but it also indicated our intention of seeking the co-operation of other public sector bodies, particularly the local authorities and the nationalised industries, in achieving these objectives.
Following the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and

Local Government invited representatives of the local authorities to form with central Government Departments a joint review body to examine local authority purchasing practices. The views of the local authorities on the Report, which was published towards the end of 1968, are being discussed between my right hon. Friend and the local authority associations. The Government have already announced their intention to introduce legislation, as soon as time can be found, to enable local authorities to co-operate more closely with one another in this field by purchasing goods and providing services on behalf of others.
The nationalised industries have carried out, within their own separate spheres of influence, a great deal of work on standardisation and rationalisation of the products they purchase. Following the publication of the White Paper, discussions were held between representatives of the nationalised industries and Government Departments and it was agreed that pilot studies should be undertaken where it appeared that further benefits might be obtained through concerted action. These studies were carried out with the trade associations representing the supplying industries as well as the users of the products concerned, and the experience gained from them has led us to the conclusion that work of this kind is worth extending and putting on a more formal basis.
The Government and the chairmen of the nationalised industries have agreed to the setting up of a joint high level group for this purpose. The tasks of the new group will be to co-ordinate existing activities; to identify candidates for further attention on the basis of detailed statistics provided by the purchasing authorities; and to arrange for the necessary detailed work to be carried out under the leadership of the predominant public purchaser of the products chosen. Teams for this deeper study will consist of those with the necessary expertise at the practical working level.
The objective of each study will be to secure the agreement of the purchasing authorities to buy the standardised products resulting from the study. Anyone who is familiar with the subject will know that it is not one where spectacular results can be achieved quickly. A great deal of patience and detailed work in


co-operation with the representatives of the supplying industries is needed to arrive at agreement on acceptable standards and varieties. But there is no doubt of the rewards to be obtained when this agreement can be achieved. There has been a substantial reduction in the variety of Government purchases and a considerable advance in the field of national and international standards, and as a result great economies in production are being achieved.
The establishment of the new group has been welcomed by the National Economic Development Council, and I believe that it will prove to be an important step in ensuring that public purchasing makes its contribution towards greater all-round efficiency.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I have three short questions on that exciting statement. First, the White Paper of May, 1967, was fathered by the D.E.A., with the Treasury as junior partner. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us now where Ministerial responsibility rests? Obviously, there is a considerable interest for the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning. Is the main responsibility there, or with the Treasury?
Secondly, on the question of legislation, we are a little near the Queen's Speech for the usual euphemism about whether time can be found. Can the Chief Secretary tell us whether he expects legislation in the next Session of Parliament?
Lastly, on the joint high level group which he has announced, is it intended that representatives of local authorities should join that group or have links with it, or that they should form a group of their own?

Mr. Diamond: The right hon. Gentleman asked, first, about the fathering of the scheme, and where responsibility now lies. He is correct in his recollection that the White Paper was put forward in the names of my right hon. Friend the then First Secretary and my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Responsibility for the policy of co-ordination of purchasing throughout the Government has always been within the Treasury. I am the responsible Minister to answer on behalf of the Treasury.
As for legislation, the right hon. Gentleman will shortly be hearing full details of what is proposed. I do not think that it would be proper for me to go further now.
As for the joint group, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that we have not yet completed our discussions with the local authorities, who form a very large and varied body, with whom discussions move rather slowly. Although we hope that at the earliest possible opportunity they would join the group I cannot say at the moment that they have representatives who are authorised and willing to join.

Mr. Maxwell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this good progress report on public sector purchasing. Although it is not exciting, it is a vital issue for British industry. Will public sector co-ordinating be under the Treasury? Will there be a more interventionist policy in future than there has been in the past? Finally, have Treasury directives to Departments of State about purchasing been amended in any way, or does he intend to amend them, to give effect to the policies enunciated in his statement?

Mr. Diamond: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the main purpose of the statement is to announce the machinery being set up to encourage co-ordination. The word "intervention" is a term that I would not wish to use lest it should be misunderstood. To get co-operation between local authorities, the Government and nationalised industries requires good will and understanding on all sides, and is not helped by the kind of intervention which might be understood by the use of that word unadorned.
My hon. Friend will also know that the Treasury has been pursuing this policy. If I had the time, and the House were interested, I could give a most exciting account of the economies which have been achieved and the number of varieties that have been reduced as a result of our activities over the past three to five years.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Chief Secretary referred to international standards, which cover only a small part of our export trade at present. Will the new group have a definite mandate to consider the pattern of export demand, and


in those cases where a slight adjustment of home purchasing specifications would enable a common run of manufacture will it be able to make recommendations?

Mr. Diamond: I am happy to be able to say "Yes" fully to the hon. Gentleman. Rather than giving detailed specifications to manufacturers and asking them to manufacture to those specifications the new policy has been to invite a number of manufacturers to say how certain requirements could be satisfied within their own specifications, particularly having regard to their own sales and export prospects. This has been working successfully and will be encouraged.

Mr. Barnett: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend does not like the word "intervention", but would he say whether he intends to use this new, welcome and substantial central purchasing power to ensure that the companies who receive the orders will at least co-operate with the Government in their economic and regional policies, in particular?

Mr. Diamond: That is something which will be very much in all our minds.

Mr. John Page: Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that from the beginning the group takes notice of the use of technologists and technology in the manufacturing firms which they may be using in future as suppliers?

Mr. Diamond: Of course it will do so, and it will be anxious to hear suggestions made by them.

Mr. Dickens: In view of the great effects of the immense purchasing power of the public sector on the pricing policy of the private sector of the economy, would it not be much better to co-ordinate all these activities in a central public sector purchasing agency?

Mr. Diamond: That has been given very, very careful consideration. We must set against the advantages of a centralised purchasing agency the disadvantages of, first, the cost of providing for a large number of co-ordinators, and, secondly, the fact that no individual can have sufficient knowledge of the whole field. Government purchases, excluding special cases like trunk roads, run to about £1,100 million—over a billion pounds—a year. Co-ordination has

already reached such a point that two-thirds of what every Government Department buys is bought not for itself, but for others.

VIETNAM (UNITED STATES POLICY)

Mr. John Mendelson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to dissociate themselves from the policy and actions of the United States Government in Vietnam, in spite of the demands of the trade union labour movement and large sections of public opinion in this country, and the need to urge upon the United States Government a more speedy withdrawal of United States forces in line with the request put forward by the historic moratorium movement in America.
My first point, which I believe to be decisive, as to why this matter is urgent is this. The President of the United States, Mr. Nixon, was heard on B.B.C. radio yesterday morning, and again at one o'clock yesterday, to say that, in his opinion, in view of the measures which he has initiated in the last 12 months, he now has world opinion, and particularly Western opinion, completely behind him. This is riot so. Many members of the United States Congress are demanding a change of policy, and the President is using alleged reports of public opinion in this country and others as an argument against them. That makes the matter urgent, and a debate therefore brooks no delay.
The second point which I wish to advance without going into the burden of the arguments which could arise only if a debate were granted is this. There are situations in which the formation of policy can be influenced by Parliament and, as I understand, the change in the Order was deliberately intended to facilitate debate in the House at a time when policy may still be influenced. We are a Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference. The discussions in Paris are, to some extent, a substitute for the recall of that conference. We have a direct responsibility, and if Parliament is to have an opportunity to urge a change of course and intervention in this critical situation


when the negotiations have broken down it must be done now.
Thirdly, there are famous historic precedents for this Motion—and this is the only other point I wish to make. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because I believe, with other hon. Members, that we must not abuse the courtesy of the House and the tolerance of Mr. Speaker, but must make the point as quickly and briefly as possible. I have listened to hon. Members on both sides who have tried to do the same. I have afforded them my respect and I expect to have the respect of my colleagues on such an occasion.
This matter has famous historic precedent. More than 100 years ago the President of the Confederacy, Mr. Jefferson Davis, claimed to have the support of public opinion in the United Kingdom behind the Confederacy. The working people of Manchester and of other parts of this country took action to prove him wrong and the opinion of those people—and their equivalent today is the trade union and labour movements who have expressed their views on this matter—was voiced and reflected in this House. I urge that the House should be given the same opportunity this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) was courteous enough to inform me that he would seek to obtain a Standing Order No. 9 debate on the matter he has raised.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to dissociate themselves from the policy and actions of the United States Government in Vietnam, in spite of the demands of the trade union labour movement and large sections of public opinion in this country, and the need to urge upon the United States Government a more speedy withdrawal of United States

forces in line with the request put forward by the historic moratorium movement in America".
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representation which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I owe the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) an apology for interrupting him last night to challenge his statement that my constituency is partly inside and partly outside the City of Cardiff. He is, of course, right. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Personal statements are listened to without comment.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but you must expect hon. Members opposite to get what pleasure they can out of it.
Parts of my constituency used to be in two counties—Glamorgan and Monmouth. That has been altered and that is what I momentarily thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to. I hope that he will accept that I misunderstood him.

Sir D. Renton: indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: Thank you very much.
It was very disconcerting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be interrupted on a point on which he was right. I apologise to him, and I hope that he will accept my apology.

Sir D. Renton: indicated assent.

Orders of the Day — CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

CARE PROCEEDINGS IN JUVENILE COURTS.

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 19, at end insert:
(aa) it is probable that the condition set out in the preceding paragraph will be satisfied in his case, having regard to the fact that the court or another court has found that that condition is or was satisfied in the case of another child or young person who is or was a member of the household to which he belongs; or

3.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It may assist the House if I suggest, as it has been put to me, that we take with this Amendment Lords Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 73, 94 and 97, all of which are linked. If there is no objection, that is what we shall do.

Mr. Callaghan: The Amendments deal with the point which has been put to us by some children's officers and others and is, in my view and that of another place, a very valuable addition to the Bill.
The law provides that where a child or young person who is a member of the same household as another child or young person against whom an offence has been committed, in relation to sexual offences paragraph (b) of Clause 1(2) covers the position. For example, if a sexual offence is committed against one girl in a household, another girl in the same household may be exposed to the same thing. But there is a gap. If one child has been ill-treated, it does not follow that other children in the house come within paragraph (a). We think that most would have done so, but there are situations where the treatment of one child is such that the risk to other children of the household is so great that it ought to be possible for

the court to make an order in respect of them. The most vivid cases which come to mind are those which have become known as the "battered baby" cases where, if the parents are psychopathic, or one of them is, between long periods of relatively kind treatment there can be outbreaks, with one child suffering, and the same might happen to another child who might be injured or might even die.
The object of the new paragraph is to give the court power to make an order in such a case as a preventive measure. I believe that it would be possible to argue that these cases would mostly be caught, but we must make quite sure. That is why we accept the Amendment.
The other Amendments are consequential or are to ensure consistency of drafting.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: We on this side of the House welcome the Amendment which was moved in another place. It is an important one. It brings the Bill into line with what is in existence in the present law on this matter. In principle, certainly it is right that courts should have the power, as a preventive measure, to take into care children of a family where it is believed that, as a result of the behaviour of the parents towards other children, they may themselves be in danger.
I want to express one matter of concern about the Amendment as it stands, and it relates to the next two Amendments with which I understand the House will be asked to disagree. Before the proposed Government Amendment could be invoked—in other words, before a sister or brother of the "battered baby" could be taken into care—one would first have to show that one member of the family was being ill-treated and that, as a result, he was in need of care and control. One would then have to show that another member of the family, although not at that time being ill treated, might be in the future. One would also have to show that he also was in need of care and control at that moment if the dual burden is to apply.
That puts a difficulty on the court. It is being asked to say that because child A has been ill-treated, it should say that there is a probability that that child may be ill-treated in the future and, therefore, should be taken into care. Any court


can understand that. However, it will also have to be proved that child B is in need of care and control at that moment. If that child is being well looked after at that moment, it may be difficult to prove that there is any need for care and control.
I appreciate that it is too late in the passage of the Bill to consider any possible further Amendment, but I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that it may be a difficult matter when it comes to interpret what are clearly intended to be useful preventive measures in this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to "then" in line 4.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, I suggest that we take Lords Amendment No. 3, with which the Government also propose to disagree.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is the third time that these Amendments have been discussed in this House. Amendments in almost identical terms were moved in Standing Committee on 25th March and, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember, were negatived after a full morning's discussion. An Amendment in identical terms to the first Lords Amendment was then moved on Report on 9th June and again negatived on a vote after a very full debate.
The debate on the Amendments in another place followed very similar lines to that in this House, and no new arguments were advanced in favour of them. Therefore, the position remains that these Amendments are totally inconsistent with one of the basic principles of the two Bills. It is on that ground that the Government invite the House to disagree with them.
I have not such faith in my own advocacy as to believe that any hon. Members holding strong views on this matter will change them in the course of the debate. Nevertheless, although a lengthy debate is not called for, we all recognise that this is the most major

point at issue that has arisen in the whole Bill. It is a case which has been pleaded with great sincerity on both sides. As I have suggested, the Government contend that to allow the Amendments would tear a rent in the whole fabric of the Bill.
The overwhelming force of the Government's reason for saying that these Amendments threaten the basic principle behind Part I of the Bill is proven by stressing an examination of this prinicple from three different standpoints. The first is that the words in question represent a statutory formulation of the aim of dealing with children in trouble outside the courts, so far as that is possible. Nearly all speakers in both Houses have claimed to support that aim.
This has been championed from the very first by the Magistrates' Association which, in its memorandum of 7th March of this year, said:
We share the desire to keep children out of court as far as possible and to involve their parents in responsibility for their future good behaviour".
On Report, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said:
Of course, no one on either side is saying that children ought to be prosecuted every time they commit offences. There is common ground between both sides on this".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1969; Vol. 784, c. 1041.]
Some people have used arguments implying that justice is not done or, at any rate, is not seen to be done unless it is done by a court of law. Obviously, such arguments, if carried to their logical conclusion, would mean all children in trouble or all children alleged to have broken the law being taken before a court. That would be totally at odds with the fundamental principles of the Bill. It is ironical that leading members of the party opposite who claim to support the aims of the Bill, although they disagree with the means by which it seeks to achieve them, are arguing in favour of a provision which clearly reflects an aim which is contrary to that of the Bill.
4.0 p.m.
As amended in the other place, Clause 1 sets out a comprehensive list of the different kinds of trouble into which a child can fall and clearly implies that every child who is thought to come within one of those six paragraphs should be


brought before the juvenile court by the police, the local authority or, where appropriate, an authorised person, so that that court can decide what, if anything, needs to be done. The Clause, as so amended, would make it easier to bring a child before the court than has ever before been the case this century—easier than it was under the Children's Act of 1908, the Act of 1933 or the Children and Young Persons Act of 1963, and far easier than under this Bill in the state that it was in when it left this House.
The amended Clause will also make it easier to take a juvenile offender to court for care proceedings than it would be to prosecute a young person under Clause 3. I am sure that everyone would agree that that would be a monstrous thing to do. An outsider who made an objective comparison of the law as it stands and the amended law in Clause 1, 4 and 5 could not fail to conclude that, although Parliament had wished to restrict prosecution as a form of proceedings against juveniles, it had not wished to restrict the number of juveniles taken before the court. Having come to that conclusion, he would find that that was a howling inconsistency in the whole structure of the Bill.
If, however, we accept that children should be dealt with outside the courts wherever possible, the next issue is to decide what criterion should be used to draw the line between those two classes of case. The question arises, is the care or control test the right one or should another criterion be put forward? The critics have argued that this is not so and that decisions whether to take proceedings should be based on such matters as the seriousness of the offence, whether it is a first offence, and whether it was committed in company with others in respect of whom it has already been decided not to go to court. Clearly, all these matters would be relevant to the decisions.
In the Government's view, however, they should not be the only or the conclusive factors. If consideration were limited only to those matters, one would have no more than the superficial appearance of justice, for decisions on court proceedings would take into account only one aspect of the child's situation, namely, the offence and the circumstances immediately surrounding it.

Real justice requires that all the child's circumstances should be taken into account. Slavish uniformity of system would bring not equality of justice, but only equality of misery.
Nearly everyone agrees that this should be done before an official decision is taken on the future of that child. The critics, however, do not want anyone other than the courts to do this. It seems to me, therefore, that the issue by now is quite simple. The critics want a system under which more children would be taken to court; the Government want a system under which fewer children would go to court. The critics favour proceedings which are not required to deal effectively with the situation of a child, because they think that discrimination between one child and another according to their respective circumstances will not otherwise be accepted as fair. The Government, on the contrary, believe that every child in trouble should receive true justice according to his own circumstances and to all those circumstances, and not according to a part of them.
We maintain that the totality of the individual circumstances of the child should be looked at and that scrutiny should not be confined to a part of the facts concerned. The ideal of true justice cannot be wholly secured unless the individual circumstances of the child are taken into account at all stages and are not deliberately disregarded until the child has already been taken before the court. The Government want to discriminate in favour of all children for whom court proceedings are not really necessary. The Amendment would discriminate against many of these children, in that they would have to go to court unnecessarily and contrary to the principles of the Bill.
The point has been put forcibly, by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, that every consideration must be given to a joint offender who is proceeded against and the burning sense of injustice which he would feel if he knew that a joint perpetrator of that same act was not being proceeded against. He maintained that that child had certain rights. I put it to the House that the other child, the child in respect of whom it is not necessary to go to court, has rights also, and those rights should not be sacrificed in the interests of any outward superficiality.
Again, there is the question whether the care and control test, or something like it, if accepted as the right principle, should actually appear in the Bill. Of course, whatever arguments right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite put now about an alternative criterion, they are prevented from maintaining this as an alternative because of the stage which we have reached with the Bill. But, with regard to the care and control criterion, it is right to remember that we have had more than 35 years of legislation which does not contain any such provision, under which many juvenile offenders are not in practice prosecuted.
We know that this legislation does not operate satisfactorily, we know that the proportion of children taken to court varies enormously from one part of the country to another. I have given various statistics relating to various groups of offenders from time to time. We should remind ourselves of the recently published figures which showed that, for children under the age of 14, in respect of offences both indictable and non-indictable, the figure for cautions in the police area of Devon and Cornwall was 64·5 per cent., while that in the Metropolitan Police District was 1·1 per cent. Clause 1 proposes to rectify that situation by setting out in black and white the basis upon which the police and local authorities should decide in each case whether or not to take a child to court.
Parliament would be acting irresponsibly if it were to defeat the provision which does this, thus ducking the whole issue. Deletion of these words is consistent only with the view that all offenders, however young, should be taken before a court. There are those who sincerely take this view, but they have never stated clearly their acceptance of the inevitable consequences of putting it into effect. It would mean an increase of at least 30,000 a year in the number of cases brought before the juvenile courts. On that consideration and the other matters which I have mentioned. I must ask the House to disagree with the Lords in these Amendments.

Mr. Carlisle: This is the only controversial Amendment left to be discussed in the Bill. It is a subject which has led to a major division of opinion throughout

the passage of the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State gave the impression that this division of opinion had been between the two sides of the House, but in fact it has been between hon. Members on both sides of the House and we debated it at length on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and it was debated at length in another place.
I must repeat on behalf of the Opposition what is still our firm view. We are moving from a position in which children under 14, rather than being brought before the court and prosecuted for an offence, are to be brought before the court under the care proceedings. Nevertheless we believe that the commission of an offence should in itself be sufficient on occasion to enable the child to be brought before the court without there having to be further proof of the fact that he is in need of care and attention.
In attempting to simplify the issue, the Under-Secretary of State over-stated his case. He said that any critic of this proposal must be taken to mean that he wanted more children brought before the courts. He said that any critic of this proposal must be saying that he does not believe in real justice in its totality.
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that among the critics of this proposal are not only such people as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and other hon. Members, and not only the Magistrates' Association but also the committee set up by the Home Office to consider the whole matter of the future of the courts in relation to young children—the Ingleby Committee, which was composed of men and women of high regard in this country, who took four years to reach their decision and who stated quite clearly that the argument which we have consistently put from this side of the House is the correct argument.
I do not believe that one can meet criticisms from a committee which went into this subject with such care as did the Ingleby Committee by saying that anybody who criticises wants to see more children brought before the courts. Clearly, that is not the case.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: As I remember it, I did not say that people who took that view wanted to see more children


before the courts. I argued that the inevitable, inexorable logic was that if we made it easier for children to be brought before the courts than at any time in this century more children could, in fact, be so brought.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for stating that he was not suggesting that we wanted to see more children brought before the courts, but it is equally incorrect to argue that an inevitable consequence would be that more children would be brought before the courts. If that is the inevitable consequence, how is that a committee such as the Ingleby Committee made this recommendation when the Committee's function was to find ways of keeping children out of the courts?
4.15 p.m.
I will not make a long speech. It may be that I have spoken at too great a length on this matter in the past. I agree that I made a long speech about it in Standing Committee. But let me repeat that we believe that the suggestion put forward by the Government will lead to a sense of injustice among those who are brought before the courts. Consider the situation under the Government's proposals if two children are together caught on the same joint criminal escapade. There is a review of their home circumstances to consider whether, in the view of the local authority, those circumstances are satisfactory or not—and I have used the word "satisfactory" rather than "good" or "bad" throughout the arguments on the Bill because it is a more suitable description.
That review will decide whether of the two children, caught on the same escapade, one is taken before the court and the other is not, although it may well be that the one who is not taken before the court is the ringleader and that the one who is brought before the court was to a large extent led on by the other.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the logical conclusion of my argument is that all children must be dealt with equally before the courts. I have never said that, nor has anyone else who argues for the Amendment ever said it. We have accepted that the way in which a child is eventually dealt with by the courts

depends on all sorts of circumstances. But we have always said that we shall build a great feeling of injustice into the minds of the children if they see themselves taken before the courts when their co-accused are not taken before the courts. They will think it unfair and their parents will think it unfair, and it is a feeling of injustice, as my right hon. and learned Friend once said, which will long outlast the feeling about or the effect of any sentence of treatment or punishment which may be imposed upon them at the time.
The seriousness of the Amendment has been slightly hidden by a remark made by Lord Stonham, who was then a Government spokesman. As reported in col. 810 of HANSARD of the House of Lords of 7th July, he said that it was true that over half the children brought before the courts at present for offences were children caught as joint offenders. In other words, over half the children already being brought before the courts are brought there not for what they themselves have done but for what they were caught doing while with other children.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that it may well be that half the children cautioned, too, may be joint offenders?

Mr. Carlisle: Of course, and I hope that there will be more cautioning and less taking to court. But I should be surprised to hear that it is the practice of the police force in any part of the country, having caught two children on a joint offence, to decide to caution one and to arrest the other. If the Under-Secretary of State has evidence that that is the case, I should be grateful to hear it, but I should be surprised.
The arguments on the subject have been canvassed and re-canvassed. I have attempted to see whether there is a new argument which might be put forward—an argument which has never before been put in the debate. With due humility, I believe that I have found one which is important. It is an example which has not before been given. It arises from the fact that the Government, in my opinion rightly, on Report agreed to a suggestion originally made by the Opposition in Committee about the payment of compensation.
In future, by Clause 3(6) courts will have power to order the parents of a child to pay compensation if that child is found guilty, if I may use that phrase, or if the offence condition is satisfied in respect of that child. Let me give the House an example of what may well happen. Three children go out and commit a certain amount of malicious damage, and they are caught. Inquiries are made into their backgrounds and it is decided by the local authority or the police that, as well as being able to prove the offence, in relation to one of the children it can also be shown that he is in need of care and control which he is unlikely to receive at home. But they do not believe that of the other two. Thus, one child is brought before the court and the other two are not. That, I claim, is the first injustice.
What happens, however, when the child comes before the court? The magistrates decide that the offence condition is satisfied. That, I claim, is the second injustice as against the other two children. But then, having decided that, the magistrates say, "We nevertheless reject the argument of the police or local authority that this child comes from an unsatisfactory home. We are not satisfied that this child is in need of care and control and, therefore, under the provisions of the Bill, we will not make an order."
Nevertheless, the child has committed damage and, under Clause 3(6), the magistrates may decide to make an order to the effect that the parents of the child must repay the damage to the tune of a maximum of £100. What is the position then? The parents of one child can have a compensation order made against them while the parents of the other two children, because that child is not, in the view of the police, in need of care and control, cannot. The Under-Secretary appears to be nodding in agreement and I take it that what I have described could be the effect of Clause 3(6). Indeed, I have given an accurate account of the legal position.
This argument has not yet been advanced and it shows clearly the effect that this provision could have. It shows the type of glaring injustice that may occur, particularly when one set of parents may feel that they have been

fined £100 because a compensation order for that amount has been made against them because the authorities are satisfied that little Johnny committed an offence, whereas the parents of the other two children cannot have that feeling because such an order is not made against them.
Having given this new example, I will not repeat the other arguments which my hon. Friends and I have adduced. The Government's proposals blur the issue between right and wrong at a time when society is not anxious that issues of this kind should be blurred. I still believe that the second and third grounds of opposition which we have always put forward against the Government's proposals are valid, though I will not repeat them, particularly since they were ably summarised by Baroness Wootton in another place. She is not known as being a strong supporter of this side of the House. Nor is she well known as being one of those critics who want to bring more children before the courts. The whole tenor of her speech was the reverse, yet she supported the Amendment which Lord Jellicoe had moved.
The second ground which she gave was that the Clause, as drafted, would militate against children being brought to court speedily; and, in justice, if children are to be brought before the court, they must be brought as quickly as possible. The third ground—I weigh this ground far more importantly than the second, because the second is, to an extent, inevitable—was the stigmatisation of parents in the eyes of their children when those children are publicly before the court and when the parents are shown before their children to be unsatisfactory and unable to keep care and control of them.
I am not arguing, and I have never argued, that all children should be treated in the same way in the end. I am arguing that where two children commit similar offences, then, if it is decided to bring them before the court, the same should apply to both rather than merely to one. The arguments I am adducing are nowhere near as open to the type of over-simplified criticism which the Under-Secretary made. As I explained, they have the support not only of the Ingleby Committee but of all those involved in the administration of justice


outside the House. Even at this last stage, I urge the Minister to think again on this issue.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that opposition to the Bill came not only from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but from the Magistrates' Association and the Ingleby Committee. He failed to mention that most of those who deal with children in trouble—probation and children's officers; and not all magistrates take the view of their Association—support the Bill.
The Ingleby Committee sat nearly 15 years ago. There have been not one but two White Papers on this subject and, after each was published, every consideration was given to the issues involved. All outside bodies concerned with the matter were consulted, not once but twice. Even after the second White Paper was published, Amendments were made to the Bill, not only differing from the White Paper but taking into account all outside interests.
I regard that as being more important than the Magistrates' Association and the views of a Committee which sat 15 years ago. After all, we are dealing with the problem of children in trouble and those who must work in this sphere.
This seems to be an issue about which we are at complete variance. Indeed, I am surprised at the unanimity among hon. Gentlemen opposite, for there is not complete agreement on this subject elsewhere in the House, let alone among those who are concerned with the problem outside.
The hon. Member for Runcorn said that there was discrimination leading to a sense of injustice. The Bill is, to a large extent, enacting the present position, for there is discrimination now, before children come before the courts. There is discrimination by the police about whether there should be a prosecution. Part of the consideration which the police give is concerned not only with the offence but with the circumstances of the child, and they are right to do that.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite and many of my hon. Friends frequently mouth praise of the juvenile liaison schemes. These schemes do a magnificent

job not just in seeking to punish children, but to stop them from committing further offences. If the majority of children should go to court and if, in all cases, that is the correct procedure—that seems to be the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite—what merit is there in the juvenile liaison schemes?
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary pointed out that in Devon and Cornwall the chances are about 2 to 1 that a juvenile who commits an offence will be cautioned. The chance in Lancashire, a part of the country in which the hon. Member for Runcorn and I practise, is about 50–50; about one child under 14 is cautioned for each one prosecuted. In the Metropolitan area, only 1 per cent. is cautioned. Thus, it is virtually 100 per cent. certain that if a child in the London area commits an offence, he will be brought before the court. There is, therefore, discrimination from the point of view of where a child lives, but I will not develop this argument further.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite could persuade me that, as a result of fewer children being cautioned in London and as a result of almost all children in the Metropolitan area being brought before the courts, there is less juvenile crime in London than in Devon and Cornwall or Lancashire, or that fewer juveniles who get into trouble in London subsequently turn out to be adult criminals, then I would believe there to be some merit in their argument. I am quite certain that the position would, if anything, be the very reverse.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he allows me to make one point that I wished to make earlier. Can we be told to what years these figures relate? I am told that they relate to 1967. The Home Secretary will agree that the police in the Metropolitan area now have a juvenile liaison scheme. They may be late in the day as compared with Lancashire, but we know that Lancashire leads the way in everything. That figure, however, is very much out of date if looked at in relation to the last year. In any case, would not the hon. Member agree that as the Metropolitan police force is the one force in the country over which the Home Secretary has control, he should do something about it?

Mr. Oakes: I am very impressed to hear the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), a Cheshire constituency, saying that Lancashire leads the country in everything, but he does not invalidate the argument. These are 1967 figures for all offences. They show that 64·5 per cent. of offenders under 14 were in London, and the percentages in Cornwall and Devon was 1·1. Other areas come in between. Bristol, at 24 per cent., was well down compared with the figure for Lancashire, which was 50·3 per cent. It does not invalidate my argument to say that London has only recently started a juvenile liaison scheme.
My argument is that if bringing children to court in nearly every instance is so effective in deterring crime why do we not see a big difference in the figures for London and for other parts of the country. As it is, they suggest that, if anything, the position would be worse, not because of this factor but because of other factors.
There is discrimination before the child ever gets into court at all, but let us look at the position when the child gets into court. When today a child goes to court there is discrimination which, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, might lead to a sense of injustice in the child or in the parents of the child. Courts discriminate, and rightly. A juvenile court magistrate must take into account all the circumstances of the offender, including the home circumstances. Having taken that into account he then decides whether the child should go to an approved school, or be put on probation, or whether a conditional discharge is the satisfactory answer. The argument of the Bill, and my argument, is that where an absolute or conditional discharge is granted the case should never have gone to court at all.
Hon. Members opposite do not argue that because courts make this decision today it leads to a great sense of injustice. The Bill does not allow a bench of lay magistrates giving a few, though valuable, hours of their time to consider these matters and make a decision: it allows the decision to be made by a competent professional children's officer. The magistrates listen to reports, but they never actually go to the homes. They may see the parents, or one of the

parents, in court, but they have no chance of a lengthy interview.
Who is the more competent to decide whether a child is in need of care and control—the lay magistrate reviewing for a few minutes the case before him or the childrens' officer who has visited the home, not once but many times, who has seen the parents and is aware of the general sense of discipline, and all the rest? This Bill is not something startlingly novel in this respect. It codifies something which now exists, whereas the likely effect of the Amendment would be to bring far more children to court.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of joint offenders and referred to the new point of compensation. There is, on the surface, some merit in his argument that might lead one to say that there might be a feeling of injustice, until one realises that the point he makes is a minor point in support of a sweeping Amendment sought by another place. I know of very few courts, and certainly very few juvenile courts, which order compensation at all. That is very rare. Therefore, a rather technical argument whether compensation could be granted under Clause 3 in a very small number of cases—a practice very rarely followed by the courts—is very puny, although I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is scraping at the bottom of the barrel in an effort to find something new in support of the Amendment.
This is one of the most important Bills for the welfare of children passed in this Session of Parliament. It is a major landmark in trying to keep children out of trouble. My right hon. Friend has every right to be proud of it, and I hope that the House will decisively reject the Amendment.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: This has been a curious week in the House. We had Home Office matters on Monday and Tuesday, and again today we find ourselves dealing with Home Office affairs. The Government Front Bench must be getting quite weary. We have heard the Home Secretary every day, but what a different Home Secretary. We had the right hon. Dr. Jekyll on Monday and the right hon. Mr. Hyde on Tuesday. I am not sure which face he will wear today in dealing with this important Amendment to a very important Bill.
I want to refer to the human relations side of the subject. As I see it, the Home Secretary has a chance, if he accepts the Amendment, to give the Bill a fair wind, which it will not get if the Amendment is rejected. No Bill which has gone through in the current Session, or which is likely to go through in the next Session, more needs a fair wind, by which I mean the broadest spectrum of agreement behind it.
I happily concede that the Home Secretary has met many of our points. By listening to what has been said from these benches and outside the House he has improved the Bill enormously as compared with its form when it came to the House, and even more enormously as compared with its form when he came to the Home Office. For that reason I hope that he will seriously consider meeting this final point. If he does so he will greatly encourage many of those who will have to administer the law as it will be. I realise that there are many who agree with the Bill as it originally stood, but I am sure that if the Amendment is made, the additional discretion which will be written in will satisfy those people, particularly magistrates, who are so concerned with the present position.
It should be made clear that if this Amendment were made no extra child need he brought to court. Both the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) spoke as if the passing of this Amendment would mean that all sorts of children would have to be brought to court, but there is no word of truth in that. All that would happen would be that officers, whether of the police or the local authority, who have to take the decision would have a somewhat wider discretion. All we are seeking to do is to widen the discretion of those whose responsibility it is to bring children to court. Surely it is sense to say that the people who have this responsibility are worthy of this extra discretion.
Maybe the hon. Member for Bolton, West was right in saying that there was some scraping of the barrel in putting forward this argument, but the cases which come forward, exceptional as they may be, are cases which will be concerned with the working of the Act. Why not allow these people this extra

discretion? The hon. Member asked who is more capable of taking a decision? He was referring to the children's officer, but in his speech he sought to narrow the decision-making capacity of the children's officer. He said in one sentence that they were capable of taking a decision and in the next that the decision should be taken from them.

Mr. Oakes: The point I made was that the children's officer is far more capable of making a competent decision through knowing all the facts than a bench of magistrates who also make a decision when the child comes before the court.

Mr. Worsley: The Amendment is about the circumstances under which a child comes before the court. The hon. Member is saying that children's officers are capable of making this decision, but he is also saying that if the child comes from a good home he cannot be brought to court. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am grateful for any interruption which contradicts that, but I believe it is what the hon. Member suggested. If the Home Secretary can correct the impression, I shall be grateful.
I end as I began, by suggesting to the Home Secretary that it would help the working of the Bill if he were to accept this Amendment, if he changed his mind to allow this additional discretion. I can promise him that if cases are brought either by the police or children's officers which are wrongly brought the courts will deal with them and if the courts do not deal with them the courts of appeal will deal with them. In this way public opinion will be reflected. As I see it, there is no risk in allowing this alteration to the Bill, but it would help enormously to give a fair wind to an exceedingly important Measure.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: I shall be consistent in saying that I have great reservations about the Bill as it is and possibly reservations about the Amendment which has come from another place. The House is in danger this afternoon by constantly using the word "children" for that is not what we are talking about. Are we to assume that the only young people involved are those under 14? If so, I would not make the speech I am about to make. If we are fair as parents——

Mr. Worsley: May I interrupt the hon. Member, as he invites interruption? As I understand the situation, children under 14 could be prosecuted in a criminal court.

Mr. Mapp: That is what I understand. I want to call the attention of the House—and, if it is not too late, the attention of the Home Secretary—to what I feel has been a lack of appreciation of the normal growth of children, infants and youths, the problem of growing up mentally and the various stages through which they pass. Those of us who have had the pleasure of being parents have seen in our lives the various phases through which boys and girls move. Only during the past few years have we changed the age of criminality from 8 to 10 and now, at one fell swoop, it is to go up to 14.
From all the statistics about crime among young people I have not been able to be told how many offences are committed by children under 10. If, because children are not brought to court when they are under 10, we believe that they do not get into trouble and commit offences before that age, we are under a great delusion.
From all that I have been able to gather from various police forces, there has been an increase of something like 12 per cent. to 15 per cent. in what would be regarded as offences by children under 10. This Bill, with practically no history to support the idea and only a hunch, raises the age from 10 to 14. I would have been happier had the age been advanced to 12 and beyond that age in four or five years' time.
In effect, we are saying that a boy under 17 will have this "do-gooder" treatment—I do not use the words unkindly—in respect of offences with which in many ways children's officers are incapable of dealing. Their development and dedication does not allow them to make decisions about boys of 14, 15, or 16 although really serious offences can be and are committed by boys of those ages. Fortunately, they are very rare.
I was pleased last week to visit six or seven youth community centres in my constituency. I am very proud of them. There hundreds of boys and girls of ages up to 17, 18, or 19 mix together in a largely uninhibited atmosphere. They

enjoy arranging football matches, and so on. The fact remains that public opinion, certainly in Oldham—this has nothing whatever to do with party politics—is disturbed. People are worried about what should be done for boys of 15 or 16 who, if we are not careful, will fall foul of the law.
We are moving into a rather permissive form of society and this I regret very much. It is not necessarily connected with the processes of law. I share the view of the Home Secretary about the difficulties of permissive societies. In the long run discipline in our society should be applied only by the courts. The courts have valuable information from every quarter. I should like to feel optimism about this Clause and I hope that in the fullness of time I may be proved wrong.
There is a small but important element, particularly among boys and less so among girls, of 15, 16, or 17, for whom we are making it far too easy to capitalise not only on mischief but, later, on crime. I am not prepared to facilitate that. I want more experiment over a longer period. If, in three or four years' time, my fears were shown not to be justified, I would be the first to ask for this additional provision.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has had an opportunity to intervene in this debate. He has had as much practical experience of matters that the Bill touches on as any hon. Member. We all know how it came to pass that he was excluded from the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill in detail. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make this speech.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) for having taken part in our discussions and for producing a new argument in favour of the Amendment, which appears completely to have floored the Government. If they wish to speak on this point I shall happily give way, but I doubt whether that will happen. I hope that we shall have new answers to some of the old questions that have been put to Ministers in previous debates. We have yet to have a serious answer to the point made in Committee by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) and my hon. Friend


the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell)—and referred to again this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn—about the effect of this new procedure on family relationships.
We know that when a juvenile offender comes before the court he probably appreciates that he is there not only because of what the police think he did but also because the relevant officers of the local authority have tried his parents and found them wanting. If he does not appreciate this fact when he appears in court he will appreciate it when he gets older. This must inevitably produce a strain on family relationships.
There is still the staff problem. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) gave us a highly idealised picture of what happens when a children's department investigates a case. We would like to think that a children's officer had ample time to go into a house, to become a friend of all those concerned, to sit down at the table and have cups of tea, and to go back in the fullness of time in order to decide, without any pressure being applied, what should happen. We know that this does not happen. Even now there is an immense shortage of children's officers.
We know that if the new investigating procedures called for in the Bill—and especially this part of the Bill—go through the pressure on children's officers will almost double. Certainly that is the finding of the children's department in my local borough. They are just not going to be able to make the detailed investigation that was suggested by the hon. Member for Bolton, West. They will have to skimp it, because extra staff will not be provided in a hurry. Hasty decisions will have to be made.
That is why the remarks made in another place by Baroness Wootton are so relevant. She appreciated that with the pressures upon children's officers they would inevitably have to make hasty decisions—to go into a house, look around, see close carpeting and all the appearances and appliances of a middle-class home and say, "This is a good home. The child is getting the care and protection that it needs" and, at the other end of the social scale, to go into a house where, perhaps, the parents have given far more care and attention to their

children than in the visibly middle-class home but where there is a smell of stale cabbage hanging around the walls, and cracked window panes, and say, automatically—simply because there is no time to go deeply into the case—"It looks as though the child is in need of care and protection".
I agree with Baroness Wootton that the scales will be weighted against the poor child. It is odd that we should see class legislation, as it were, coining from this Government.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that a children's officer would be one of the first people to recognise the point that he is making, that there can be far more care, control, love and affection in a slum home than very often exists in a semi-detached middle-class "palace"?

Mr. Goodhart: How will the children's officer find out?
As I say, the burden on children's officers will be immensely increased by the Bill. Some research has been carried out in the recent past and it has been discovered that childrens' officers in one of the Greater London boroughs were able to devote 11 minutes a week to the average problem family under their care. Now the burden is to be increased.
I am aware that the number of children's officers will also be increased, but if one is to delve into the real family relationships and the real emotional ties and bonds in a family, one will need a great deal of time. I am arguing that that time will not be available, given the number of children's officers that we are likely to be able to recruit in the near future.
The Government have repeatedly made it plain that their main concern in all this is to keep the number of children who appear in court down to the smallest possible. I agree with that objective. But it seems to me that there is one more overriding objective, which is not just to keep children out of court but to keep them out of trouble, and I do not think that this part of the Bill contributes to that overriding objective.

Mr. David Lane: It is a pity that at least on these two Amendments we look like repeating today, with


the Home Secretary and his colleagues, the discord of yesterday, rather than resuming the total harmony of Monday.
We are on familiar ground. The arguments are finely balanced on this issue and, as we have seen today and previously, there are differences of opinion on both sides of the House. I felt this afternoon that the Under-Secretary was carried away by the exuberance of his own advocacy and, in fact, overstated his arguments and distorted the motives of some of us.
I am not going over all the ground. I should like merely to stress one or two points which I feel are particularly significant. During the months when this legislation has been before us, I have been impressed, in talking to those concerned in and around my own constituency, by the extent to which this double test or double standard which we are discussing today has struck and alarmed people. They are genuinely worried that this may unintentionally produce a new element of injustice.
I make no apology for returning to this at the very last stage. I do not think the Government's arguments during the passage of the Bill here and in another place have yet reassured these people and set this anxiety at rest. The Government have treated it far too lightly. I am glad that the other place has given us this last chance to air and argue the problem. I hope that it is not too late to ask the Government to think again, even now.
The main argument has centred on this question of injustice or discrimination. We all know that up to a point there are areas of discrimination in the existing procedure. Others with more experience than I have stressed this fact. This provision which the Government insist upon putting back into the Bill will surely increase the element of unfairness in an important respect, and I am surprised that nothing was said from the other side of the House to deal with the very impressive points made in another place by Baroness Wootton. Let us remember that it is injustice in children's eyes which is the most enduring kind of injustice.
If I may mention the other side of this coin, the Under-Secretary accused us—I

think that I have his words right of—trying to put back a slavish uniformity of system into this legislation. As has been pointed out, much discretion would surely remain, and, although statistics have been quoted this afternoon about the operation of police practice over cautions, we should remind the Government that with the various police reforms one can look forward to a greater degree of standard practice among the police forces in different parts of the country.
May I mention two other points to which I do not think the Government have attached enough weight. One is the development of gang activity and gang violence. Figures were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) which I need not repeat. I am sad that there has been an increase in this sort of activity even in my own civilised and largely law-abiding constituency, with a fresh example only this past week. This must be a factor of growing importance in our consideration.
The other point is the matter of speed and delay. By reverting to the original form of the Bill, I believe the Government are seriously risking greater delays at an important stage in possible proceedings and in dealing with possible offenders. If I may use the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in a rather different context, the risk will be all the more because of the new burdens we are putting on children's officers by other, more admirable provisions of this Bill.
Surely we want any legislation that leaves this House—if I may repeat the words used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place and in another context last week—to be firm and fair. The Bill should do a lot of good. I hope it will improve the present system and I sincerely wish it well. But if the Government persist on this point at issue, the Bill will reach the Statute Book with an unfortunate blemish and with an important risk of extra injustice.
Yesterday, I hoped that the Government had used up their entire stock of obstinacy, but from today's signs they do not seem to have reached the end of their reserves. I am sorry about this


and I regret that the Government have insisted on forcing their view upon the House in this respect.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: I got the impression when my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) was speaking just now that he felt that the difference between us was somewhat narrow and that we could all be accommodated. I think it is quite clear that the Government will not give way on this point. I think the difference between us is deep and fundamental. It is because of this that as the progress of this Bill has developed my antipathy towards this Clause as unamended has grown.
I think the difference lies in this way. I seek to maintain a distinction between a clear law and the use of Executive power—a subject to which I shall return in a minute—which I think this Bill, and this Clause in particular, blurs in a number of ways. Secondly it seeks to draw conclusions nationally and permanently from the practice of police forces operating provincially and temporarily of which we have inadequate information.
There is a distinction, a distinction which should be maintained, between a clear law and whatever we may do to temper the law in certain circumstances. The courts are the embodiment of our law, and they must be seen to administer it. On the other hand, it is standard practice, I think we all agree, for the law to be waived in certain circumstances, making way for parental control, police control or other means whereby we temper the law with some understanding of the circumstances. But we do not alter the law. This means that, in the last resort, anyone who breaks the law should know that he is liable to be brought before the court and be dealt with under the remedies available to the court.
What we are saying here is not, as the Under-Secretary of State implied, that we wish to bring everyone before the court. On the contrary. But for his part, the hon. Gentleman is reversing the argument. He is saying that only in very limited circumstances—and then, as far as I can understand, only after the executive arm has made its own investigations, without any crime having been proved—will the court be able to take action. He has the cart before the horse. It is a

dangerous precedent. It should be resisted at this early and fairly minor stage, relating as it does at the moment only to people between the ages of 10 and 14.
The dangerous nature of the principle adumbrated by the Government showed itself clearly in the Under-Secretary's opening words when he used the curious phrase that, "We have in mind the rights of the boy whom it is not necessary to bring to the court". I have in mind the rights of the community which demand that people who break the law, clearly stated, shall know that, if it is the desire of the community, they shall be brought before the court. By the commission of an offence, the child ceases to have his right, though he be a child. The confusion apparent in what the Minister said underlies the Government's Clause. This is a dangerous time for such a change to be made. It is a change totally contrary to the underlying weight of public sentiment today.
I give a further illustration of the way in which the Minister's mind has gone fundamentally wrong on this matter. He spoke of the children's officer as, naturally, being an expert who would know better how to act in this situation. That is not true. The magistrate is less of an expert in some respects than is the children's officer—that is true—but the magistrate may have the advice of the children's officer, and the function of the magistrate is not to act as an expert but to act, drawing upon the advice of experts, in the public interest, which is something which the children's officer does not do and should not be empowered to do.
Now, one final point which makes the whole thing totally unacceptable. The case has not been proved. The reasons for the Clause unamended have not been established. Basically, what is said here is that we want to keep children out of court. Everything must bow to that objective. I do not object to keeping children out of court. It is clear that, under the present system, that occurs. But by what criteria are we to judge the matter? We are told that in the Metropolitan area one per cent. are kept out of court and that in Devon and Cornwall the proportion is 68 per cent. What is the right percentage? How are we to judge? What evidence is presented? What evidence do we have of the


relevant crime rates in those areas? What period has passed since the figures were collected? Those are all facets of the information which are needed for an intelligent decision to be made. The Under-Secretary may be right. I do not know. He has presented no evidence on which the House can make a reasoned judgment, yet he asks us to make a broad and sweeping change in the fundamental basis of the operation of the law, and at a time when public sympathy is not with him.
For all those reasons, I regard the Clause unamended as extremely dangerous, and I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will vote for the Lords Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Sensing the difficulty here created by the Government's obduracy in refusing to change their mind, I intended not to intervene. Sometimes in the House one has the feeling that debate proceeds well, that arguments are nicely adduced and that our proceedings are enjoyable, but occasionally we like to feel that there is an end product. That we shall not lose the battle before we start.
I have, however, decided to intervene in order to press this matter upon the Government. They must be aware of the deep concern in the country, of the growing alarm not only in the Metropolis and large conurbations but in our ordinary urban areas and the small towns and villages. Wherever one looks in the United Kingdom today, there are people walking in fear, there are people unable to rest comfortably in their homes because of a feeling that there will be an interruption of their peace. There are parents, perhaps, anxious about their children, who are not satisfied that the disciplines of society are of a kind which they can regard as complementary to their objectives in bringing up their children as good citizens.
There is a weakness in authority. Too much time is spent in pontificating, in psuedo-psychology. Some people seem to have read their books on psychology from Freud downwards and come to the conclusion that it is better to be do-gooders than doers of the right thing. But the shrewd commonsense of the average man in the United Kingdom

affords a better base from which to make the tests of social discipline than some of the theories of politicians, statesmen, magistrates and psychologists.
It is time someone raised his voice and called for a halt to the tendency towards appearing to be soft. It is time to stop indicating to the public at large that, if we cannot enforce the law, we had better not use it, or, as we have it under this Bill, if the question of enforcement has become an embarrassment, we should see whether we can opt out of it, as it were, through the medium of care and control legislation.
What does my hon. Friend mean by "care and control"?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: With respect, I put two points to my hon. Friend. First, does he appreciate that the concept of care and control is not being introduced here for the first time but we are reproducing what, in generality, appears in the 1963 Act? Second, there is no question of softness. Where under this subsection it is believed that a child or young person will not otherwise receive care and control, there is a positive exhortation to authority to deal with him in the way which is enabled by the Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter: Unfortunately, there is sometimes a weakness shown by hon. Members once they enter Ministries: they forget where they have come from and they tell the rest of us how to suck eggs. I will not wear that, either.
The courts do not afford the criteria here. One of the notable features of life today is that the courts are not doing their job. Magistrates' courts are not doing their job. Magistrates' courts are imposing nominal fines for thuggery, for vandalism and for theft which makes the law ridiculous. Why are they behaving in that way?—because they find difficulty in applying enforcement orders if they put upon persons found guilty fines which reflect the nature of the crimes committed.
The result is that throughout the Kingdom in Her Majesty's courts there are to be seen lazy louts, shirkers, people who neither work nor want but who are prepared to rob, and to smash old people's faces in. When they land up in the courts, the dear old magistrates impose a nominal fine, and then off they


go, laughing at the police and the rest of the witnesses as they walk down the stairs.
If that is so, is it good legislation to say that we cannot deal with this problem, we cannot tackle it in a positive way and that we must therefore syphon off this group from the courts under the umbrella of care and control, sweeping it under the carpet? There is a good law in physics which says that one cannot get something out of nothing. We cannot gain an advantage from the present care and control system because, even before overloading children's officers and wardens of homes by this proposed method, these people are already overworked.
The House must not be kidded along to assume that because we are talking about extending the areas of care and control this extra capability for care and control is available. Having expounded that in the roughest way I can, and it was intended to be rough, I start my submission from the shrewd basis of the ordinary man who is pleading that authority should impose by legislation at least an attitude of firmness which will give us the social disciplines we require. We should not appear to be giving to the offender all the benefits of the doubt saying, "Look here, you have been a naughty boy, we will have to give you some care and control."
On the other hand, it is not a contest between the Government, who want to see less people in prison, and the critics, who want to see more. That is an unjust and unfair way to present this. Those of us who want social discipline do not want to see more people in prison, we want to see general punishments that can be applied in the courts. In other words, if someone robs a man or damages property by X amount, the punishment shall not only be a fine and the payment of the costs of the prosecution, but also a repayment of the loss or the full extent of that damage, irrespective of the means of a person and no matter how long it takes.
All this fiddle-faddle about people on £10 a week who cannot pay a fine in the court is tommy rot. What is the point of the law in such circumstances, when a wife who has been separated from her husband can obtain a maintenance order which, while it takes into account the

means of the husband, is enforceable over a considerable period of time? I know that people can say that it does not work, but there is nothing perfect, nothing is final. That does not mean that we should abdicate from our duty and from the principle that a person who does wrong should repay to the full extent the damage he has caused.
If, on the other hand, my hon. Friend says that this is wrong, I would point out to him that if I commit a motoring offence, if I am caught speeding, my means are not examined when I go to court and I may be fined £25 or £35 and my licence endorsed or withdrawn. If I were not a Member of Parliament but merely a teacher, as I once was, and I committed the same offence I would receive the same kind of treatment. If I was not a teacher but a labourer and I committed the same offence, again I would get the same kind of treatment. If I did not speed but went down the High Street, hit an old man and took his wallet, I would he fined £5 because the bench would understand me. I would be in need of care, certainly not control.
The law is becoming ridiculous. Neither my hon. Friend, the Chief Whip nor anyone else, will get me to support the Government's position here. Sometimes this House has to say to the Government in the strongest possible terms that they are not always right. I have experience in my own constituency, and my first duty is to my constituency. All the evidence I have tells me that on this count the Government are wrong. My constituency represents a good cross-section of the community of the United Kingdom, and I have come to the logical conclusion that the general public in the United Kingdom support the view I take.
There is nothing more stupid about a law or proposed legislation than evidence of inconsistency. If this Amendment is not accepted we shall have an inconsistent situation, of which I shall give an example. There are three boys, one of whom is the ringleader, who commits an offence. The ringleader comes from a good family, his parents can be shown as being people who will provide care and control. The second comes from a family in which the husband will not work, is a danger to society, but where the mother is an excellent mother. Such a boy would be brought before the court


which would have to decide the nature of the care and control.
Then, the third boy's parents are separated, they have had no chance to make a home. Both are, perhaps, good parents, but because they have not raised money to buy a house or maybe because they are low down on the council house waiting list, they have not been able to make a home. Here are three boys committing the same offence, two of them submissive to the ringleader who can get off scot-free while the other two are major social problems. Yet the problems are not those which have been exacerbated by the boys, but by social conditions.
This may be a very small matter in the morass of legislation passed by this House, but it is a terribly important matter. If we have to rely on what might be called the dedicated work of laymen in our magistrates' courts it is most unfair and unjust to place upon these people the responsibility of making the choice presented to them by the Government's obduracy in not accepting this Amendment.
The White Paper "Children in Trouble" deals with offenders aged between 10 and 14 years. In that White Paper, Children in Trouble—Cmnd. 3601—it is stated:
The commission of an offence by a child of this age"—
that is, between 10 and 14 years of age—
will cease to be, by itself, a sufficient ground for bringing him before a court.
I have already referred to the fact that I was a teacher. I do not know how many times I have felt like saying to the Home Office in that capacity, and certainly to the magistrates' court, that this is the very age group where one has the most trouble, that this is the age group of the most important formative years and which is the apprenticeship to adult life.
5.30 p.m.
I say that it is not kind to young boys of 10 to 14 years to make the law so soft when they are in a state of bravado and commit an offence—I accept without the intention of breaking the law as such, because every boy of that age is a bit of a colt and it is the teacher's job to understand it. I would send out, as a teacher,

poor citizens to the world if, when a boy committed an offence, I treated him kindly, if I merely stood him in the corner and said, "You are a naughty boy". I state quite frankly that I got a cane out in such a case and gave him two and he respected me for it because the law was quick, it was done without passion and it was forgotten.
There is some merit about punishment. My experience as a teacher has been that boys of this age, whenever they have gone to court, come back—as they will certainly do so under the new system, with all the difficulties which I have indicated—with a false sense of bravado. They are the heroes of the day in the school and are incited to more offences. I object to that because young boys should not be treated in this way, not even by the best-thinking minds or best attitudes in the Home Office. I am not criticising those in the Home Office who have produced the Bill because I know that they produced it for the best purposes, and it is, indeed, an enlightened and excellent Bill—except for this one difficulty.
A similar situation appears to apply in the case of the age group 14 to 17. For the sake of brevity, I shall not deal with that except to say that this large group of young men of that generation are the equivalent in terms of experience and development of men of 21 and 23 in my generation. It is in this group, too, that we have to apply some discipline.
I am sorry to have taken up more time than might have been expected, but it indicates that I have felt sorely about this. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows that I have written to the Home Office on many occasions, but the merit of my taking up the time of the House is my belief that more discipline is good for young people. I believe that the vast majority of very young people who are good law-abiding citizens would accept better and more social disciplines in order that the fringe groups, the spoilers in our society, can be controlled.
I also believe that adult society not only has its duty to these young people, but that when people reach retirement and the "senior citizens" group, or when they are infirm or for any reason need


to be defended by the community, it is wrong that the law should be such that it may encourage far more than necessary the youthful braggart, the spoiler, thug and thief to damage them, destroy their property and enter their homes. For that reason, I cannot support the Government.

Sir Douglas Glover: A very fine speech.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I arrived in the Chamber after four o'clock and normally would have hesitated to intervene in a debate whose opening speeches I had not heard. However, this is the last opportunity the House will have of considering the very important matters which have been brought to its attention by hon. Members on both sides in favour of the Lords Amendment and against Clause 1 as it originally stood.
I share the profound misgivings voiced on both sides as to the social consequences of taking children and young people not only out of the ambit of the courts but subjecting them to a wholly new procedure which will govern, not what is to be their treatment if it is found that they have committed an offence, but is whether they shall be brought to answer any offence at all.
Clause 1 as it stood reflected the confusion which the Government have manifested all along in this Bill between the factors which it is proper to consider in deciding whether someone shall be brought before a court, or brought for the truth to be ascertained as to whether or not he has committed an offence, and the factors which are right and proper to be considered when, his offence having been proved, it has to be decided what shall be done with him.
The truth is that, whatever the age, if a child or young person is to be morally responsible and is to know the difference between right and wrong, the only factor which should decide whether he shall be brought before a court or not is whether there is reason to believe that he has committed an offence and not whether, in addition, he is in need of care and control which he is otherwise unlikely to receive.
I shall not go into the point, because it has been covered so often, that it is manifestly unfair as between one child

and another, between one person and another, that other factors shall be taken into consideration as to whether there is a prime facie case to answer or not, because it is, indeed, manifestly unfair, and that has been said on both sides again and again. But I am following the admirable speech of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who spoke with profound knowledge of the young and of their reactions, acquired in a long career in teaching. The only factor which really should decide, when a child is an offender, whether or not he should be brought before the court, is whether there is evidence that he has committed an offence.
When one considers the effect of this legislation one sees the appalling results which will ensue if it is passed unamended. For instance, a thirteen-year old—because children mature earlier—is guilty of rape, or robbery with violence or burglary or making away with large quanties of property. These things are not unknown. The officer who has evidence of this has to ask himself not only whether he has evidence which will sustain the charge before the court, but whether the child is in need of care and control which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under this legislation. That is in the case of a serious offence. Whatever the age of those committing serious offences is a wholly irrelevant consideration.
This is a most relevant consideration, of course, and everyone would acknowledge that, when it comes to the determining what is to be done with a child or young person who has committed an offence, but to say that it is relevant to whether he should be amenable to the ordinary discipline of the courts and to take extraneous factors of that kind into account when making that decision is to deprive society of what in the last resort is its only protection against juvenile offenders—the power of the courts to deal with them and the power of the police to bring them before the courts.
I may be only reiterating what has been said again and again in speeches from both sides of the House, but it cannot sufficiently be reiterated, for it is a factor of the greatest importance. I view with profound misgivings the future in our country, a country where juvenile delinquency has been rising year after year


and where the figures cited in our debates have been appalling, if Clause 1 is passed unamended.
In their legislation relating to the young, the Government have been trying to perform the difficult feat of the circus rider of riding two horses, but in this case it is the impossible feat of riding the two horses when they are going in opposite directions.
Much of the legislation which we have considered and passed in the present Session of Parliament has been based on the assumption that young people today are more mature, more understanding, more capable of serving society, more capable of earning their own livings, more capable of making decisions which affect them in the most fundamental and important respects in their everyday lives, that they are capable at the age of 18 of voting and of deciding who shall form the Government, capable of making wills at 18 and of marrying and of buying houses at 18.
Yet this legislation would take the same young people up to the age of 17 outside the ordinary system of the courts. Although it has been much improved in the course of our debates in that regard, nevertheless there is a fundamental contradiction between the philosophy which informs the Bill, good though some of it is—and I concede that at once—the philosophy which informs in particular Clause 1, and the philosophy which informed that legislation which we have passed and which gives the vote to young people of 18 and gives them the power to regulate their own affairs and to come of age and to be adult in all respects.
Society cannot have it both ways. If it he right that young people are maturing earlier and that they are capable of managing their own affairs and deciding and having a voice in the government of the country at the age of 18, it is wholly wrong to say that up to the age of 17 and certainly up to the age of 14, they are to be taken right outside the power of the ordinary law and be dealt with in accordance with these special provisions.
In these circumstances, I submit that their Lordships have made a most important improvement to Clause 1 which makes it much more acceptable. It means

that children and young persons may be brought before a court whatever their home circumstances when there is evidence of their commission of an offence. The home circumstances would then be considered, as they should be, in considering what is to be done with the offender.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I apologise to the opening speakers in the debate for not having been present when they spoke.
I hope that the Under-Secretary is now impressed with the weight of opinion behind the Amendment and against the present sense of the Clause. Outside the House opinion right from the start, felt strongly on this matter, has not come from any one profession or any one branch of those interested in these things. In the House, as we have now discovered, it has not come from only one party.
In one sense the debate has opened a new approach, which is the time which the Government are choosing to do this thing in this way. Is it the right time? The Under-Secretary claimed that no new principle was at stake. He said that we were only extending something which had been made possible in an earlier Act. Some of the worst and silliest things Parliament has ever done have been done on exactly that principle—that somewhere in some earlier Act a precedent could be found. I beg the hon. Gentleman not to extend that argument too far.
Whether this is the right time is a question of great importance. In the minds of many people this is flying in precisely the opposite direction to that in which a Department responsible for law and order and for setting an example should now be moving.
There are two things which trouble me about the Clause, and this is why I support the Lords Amendment. First, in effect we are shifting authority from the judiciary to the administration. The Home Office is doing this partly in the belief that it will thereby gain in expertise. That point was effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), and I leave it there.
The second matter is much more important. What is being sought is not to avoid the stigma of criminality, but to


avoid the stigma of guilt, which is quite different. Whether the removal of a sense of guilt in a child is a wise action at this time is strongly disputed outside the House by those well qualified to judge.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) talked about this being the group most in trouble now. I wonder whether anyone in the Home Office has looked at the analysis of criminal statistics for the Metropolitan area, those figures which, broken down into percentages, give the age groups of those most responsible not for petty but for serious offences. I cannot imagine anyone seriously analysing those figures and then coming here with his hand on his heart to support the present intentions of the Clause. It is because I feel that the Home Office approach is so unrealistic that I ask why it is so insensitive to expert opinion. Why is it being so obstinate about this Amendment?
With many excellent things in it the Bill will yet require tremendous good will from those required to operate it. It will take a long time to implement. It will be three or four years before we see most of the Bill in action, and it may be a couple of years before any of it starts to operate. The Under-Secretary knows the administrative and other difficulties which will require good will and, in a sense, the convinced minds of those who will make the Bill a success or otherwise. By being so obstinate about this one matter the Home Office is prejudicing the good will and the convinced minds that it must have, and that is why we so regret it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: By leave of the House, I should like to deal with a few matters which have been raised and with which I have been specifically asked to deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) and one or two hon. Members opposite share the misconception that because Clause 1, before being amended in another place, deals as it does with the double test, all children and young persons up to the age of 17 will thereby be able to escape the possibility of criminal conviction unless the double test is satisfied.
In case there may be any lingering traces of that misconception, I would impress on the House that under these two Amendments we are talking about care proceedings for children and young persons. Under Clause 5 there is the question of the ordinary criminal prosecution for young persons. We should not assume that the dividing line is 14. It is true that the Bill makes it possible for any age up to 14 to become the dividing line between the categories of a child and the category of a young person. But under Clause 32 it is possible for the House to change that to any age between 10 and 14.
I have already given some indication in Committee that the first development would be to the age of 12. Then, unless it was felt that there was overwhelming evidence that it would be wrong, harmful and impracticable to move to another age, it would gradually be moved as resources permitted and as experience showed that it could be moved, up to the maximum age of 14. Therefore, what we are talking about is the prospect of that line being drawn at 12.
The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) managed to bring if not a new argument at least a new example into our discussions on the Bill, and I congratulate him on this. The example he gave under Clause 3(6) is valid. I have no doubt that a court would be entitled to act in that way. But I cannot conceive of an authority deciding to bring a case before the court in those circumstances. In other words, I cannot conceive of it bringing the third boy before the court to seek a compensation order.

Mr. Carlisle: I never suggested for a moment that it would bring him before the court to obtain a compensation order. What I said was that it would bring him before the court because it believed that it could prove both heads of the test. The court decides that he has committed the offence but is not in need of care and control and may then decide that his parents should pay compensation.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. That shows how narrow is the gap between us. The authority would not have brought the boy in the first place to obtain a compensation order. The court would pay particular heed to what the authority regarded as the appropriate


order that should be made. Compensation orders, in any event, are made at present in only a very small percentage of cases—under 5 per cent. It is inconceivable in the circumstances that the court would make a compensation order.
Therefore, although the theoretical possibility of this wholly inconsistent set of circumstances being brought about still remains, I do not think that its practical possibility can be rated so high as to regard it as something which completely torpedoes this part of the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: Why on earth does the hon. Gentleman suggest that in the circumstances I outlined it is inconceivable that the court would make an order for compensation? The court may think, very rightly, having regard to the views of society, that the parents of the child who has committed malicious damage should have a compensation order made against them. It is the hon. Gentleman who is being inconsistent, because the Home Office at this very time has a committee studying means whereby compensation orders should more widely be made by the courts. 'Therefore, to say that they are hardly ever made is utterly inconsistent with the argument that the Home Office is putting forward elsewhere.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Well, there it is. I shall not elaborate on what I have already said, but it is surely inconsistent, because a study is made of the use of compensation orders in a wider compass, to rely on the argument that there is a real possibility of compensation orders being made in circumstances where they would be wholly inappropriate and inequitable.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr Goodhart) voiced his doubts about the deleterious effect the provision could have on family relationships, with children taken to court regarding their very appearance in court as ipso facto an indictment of the competence and standing of their parents. But by this Bill we are doing away with the good parent test which appears in the current law, in Section 2(1)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963.
Once again we have had raised the question of delay and the denial of swift justice. I am certain that the provision will not cause substantial extra delay in

dealing with cases compared with the existing system. Those who have suggested this have disregarded the considerable experience which already exists of pre-trial enquiry and consultations under the present system. They have also disregarded the corollary of getting cases very quickly to court in the first instance, which is that the court is far more likely to adjourn for further inquiries before finally deciding what order to make. Therefore, it may well be that under the new procedures there would be a net saving of time in dealing with many cases.
But there is a far more important consideration here—the grave doubt whether the cry for swift justice can in any event be compatible with the main principles of the Bill. Dealing with children according to their needs and keeping them out of court if possible necessarily means making inquiries into each child's background and circumstances to discover his needs and whether they can be met without court proceedings. If we are not prepared to allow the relatively modest time required for this purpose before deciding whether court proceedings should not be taken, we might ac well abandon straight away any hope of achieving the aims of the Bill. It is perfectly possible for swiftness to be the very negation of justice.
The Report of the Ingleby Committee has been mentioned. Paragraph 86 recommended that an offence alone should remain a sufficient ground for court proceedings against a child under 12, but that the proceedings should be civil in nature. For non-offenders, the Committee proposed that there should be a double test similar to Clause 1(2). The basic difference between Clause 1(2) and the Ingleby recommendation, therefore, is that the Clause applies the care or control test to offenders as well. This is merely the logical conclusion of the Ingleby approach. The Committee expressly said that before any proceedings were instituted under its proposal there should be consultation between the police and local authorities to ensure that proceedings were based on the most appropriate grounds, and to eliminate proceedings where the matter could be adequately resolved without a court order. In other words, the Ingleby Committee recommended precisely what


Clause 1(2) seeks to achieve. However, it did not propose any effective machinery for achieving it. Therefore, we can claim that what we are doing in the Bill is to bring about an effective manifestation of the Ingleby Report within the legislative framework.
6.0 p.m.
We have heard, as we have heard in all our debates on this matter, about the good and bad homes—or the satisfactory and the unsatisfactory homes, as they were described by the hon. Member for Runcorn. I shall try, for one last time, to put this in what I believe to be its proper perspective. I have no confidence that I shall succeed on this occasion when I have failed on so many other occasions. The test of the need for care and control is in no way synonymous with a person's home—whether it be good or bad, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, rich or poor. It deals only with the totality, the whole package, of a child's circumstances, past, present and future; his relationship with his family; and the whole atmosphere of his home, whether it be an atmosphere of love, discipline or respect. It deals with a number of considerations. The home is only one of them, and I am sure that I am not putting the case unfairly when I say that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have concentrated on one out of a dozen considerations, namely, the home. They have maintained that because this consideration is cribbed and confined, obviously it must be an unfair consideration to be used as a distinction between a case which should be taken to court and a case which should not be taken to court.

We have heard a powerful speech this afternoon from my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools and a fervent speech from the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), but with the greatest respect to them—and I appreciate their complete sincerity in this matter—they did not deal with the issue now before the House. The issue before us is not whether there should be a criterion additional to the considerations mentioned in subsection (1). Most right hon. and hon. Members opposite would accept that there should be criteria because they know full well that the alternative to having criteria is that the judgment as to whether a case should be brought before the courts—and, of course, they do not want cases to be brought before the courts unnecessarily—turns on all manner of ill-defined, unspoken prejudices or intuitive considerations, intuitive caprices. Therefore, the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides accept that there must be criteria.

The issue as I see it is this: should the criteria be limited to the type of offence, whether it occurred and when, or should they be all-embracing? The consideration as to whether a child or young person needs care and control is allembracing. The criteria are properly applied in an informal way nowadays in scores of thousands of cases. On this basis, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 120.

Division No. 350.]
AYES
[6.4 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Allen, Scholefield
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fernyhough, E.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Forrester, John


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fowler, Gerry


Bence, Cyril
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Garrett, W. E.


Bessell, Peter
Dempsey, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dickens, James
Gregory, Arnold


Blackburn, F.
Dobson, Ray
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Boyden, James
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hamling, William


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hannan, William


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, John
Harper, Joseph


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hobden, Dennis




Horner, John
Manuel, Archie
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth
Roebuck, Roy


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marquand, David
Rose, Paul


Howie, W.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, John
Rowlands, E.


Hynd, John
Millan, Bruce
Ryan, John


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Molloy, William
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Kelley, Richard
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Slater, Joseph


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lawson, George
Moyle, Roland
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick (Newton)
Norwood, Christopher
Symonds, J. B.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Lipton, Marcus
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Padley, Walter
Wallace, George


McBride, Neil
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McCann, John




Macdonald, A. H.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wellbeloved, James


McGuire, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilkins, W. A.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackie, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Randall, Harry



McNamara, J. Kevin
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)





NOES


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Prior, J. M. L.


Bell, Ronald
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Scott, Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brinton Sir Tatton
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Silvester, Frederick



Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Speed, Keith


Brown Sir Edward (Bath)
Kitson, Timothy
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Bullus Sir Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lane, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Carlisle, Mark
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Clark, Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Clegg, Walter
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooper-Key Sir Neill
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Cordle, John
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dance, James
Maddan, Martin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Davidson James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
Monro, Hector
Whitlock, William


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, A. W.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Murton, Oscar
Winstanley, Dr, M. P.


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley



Grieve, Percy
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Jasper More and


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 2, line 17, after "court" insert:
may make orders in pursuance of paragraphs (c) and (d) of the preceding subsection but subject to that".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, I suggest that we debate, if we are to debate, Lords Amendment No. 104.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Amendment enables a court to make a care order as well as a hospital order in care proceedings in respect of children and young persons.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S. 1

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 3, line 24, at end insert:
( ) Without prejudice to any power to issue a summons or warrant apart from this subsection, a justice may issue a summons or warrant for the purpose of securing the attendance of the relevant infant before the court in which care proceedings are brought or proposed to be brought in respect of him; but subsections (3) and (4) of section 47 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (which among other things restrict the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued) shall apply with the necessary modifications to a warrant under this subsection as they apply to a warrant under that section and as if in subsection (3) after the word "summons" there were inserted the words "cannot be served or".
( ) Where the relevant infant is arrested in pursuance of a warrant issued by virtue of the preceding subsection and cannot be brought immediately before the court aforesaid, the person in whose custody he is
(a) may make arrangements for his detention in a place of safety for a period of not more than seventy-two hours from the time of the arrest (and it shall be lawful for him to be detained in pursuance of the arrangements); and
(b) shall within that period, unless within it the relevant infant is brought before the court aforesaid, bring him before a justice, and the justice shall either make an interim order in respect of him or direct that he be released forthwith.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, I suggest that we take Lords Amendments Nos. 21, 24, 40, 47, 48 and 99. They are all linked.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The effect of these Amendments is to empower a justice to issue a summons or warrant to secure the attendance of a child or young person before the court, or his detention in default.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 5. line 11, leave out "twenty-five" and insert "fifty".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In Committee, an Amendment to increase the maximum sum in which the parents could be bound over from £25 to £100 was resisted by the Government. Subsequently, an Amendment enabling a young person himself to be bound over in care proceedings was accepted. In another place, it was argued that there should be a higher maximum for the binding over of parents than of young persons, and £50 was suggested.
I appreciate that the considerations are very nicely balanced, but the Government saw the force of the view that there should be different maxima for parents and their children. They relented and accepted that the maximum in the case of parents should be £50.

Mr. Worsley: We welcome the Government's change of heart in this matter. We hope that it is not as a result of the progress of inflation since we were in Committee. At that time we were accused, as we are so often by the hon. Gentleman, of having a punitive point of view. I hope he will realise that our desire to put a higher maximum in this case was never inspired by a punitive point of view but simply by a desire, in a Measure which it is hoped will remain unamended for some years, to make sure that the figure suggested was an effective one. Even now, clearly £25 is not such a figure in certain families. We feel that it would have been better to have accepted our Amendment in Committee. Nevertheless, we do not intend to look a gift horse in the mouth. We realise that the Government have come halfway, and we welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO S. 1(2)(e)

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 7, line 8, at end insert:
For the purposes of this subsection an offence under Section 14(1) of the Criminal


Justice Administration Act 1914 (which provides for damage committed wilfully or maliciously to be punishable on summary conviction) shall be treated as an indictable offence within the meaning of the said Act of 1952.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It has the effect of allowing a court to order compensation in care proceedings where less than £5 malicious damage is involved. This deals with a point made by the Opposition on Report.

Mr. Carlisle: I welcome this Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman said, it deals with the point which I raised on Report, and it meets it correctly.
The point was that in not only those cases under £5 but the vast majority of cases of malicious damage, prosecutions are brought under the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, rather than under the Malicious Damage Act. At that time, I suggested that the wording used by the Government did not cover those cases. From the arguments then advanced by the hon. Gentleman, it became apparent that probably it did in all those cases other than those involving sums less than £5. However, the hon. Gentleman will realise that, although he said that my Amendment was unnecessary, his argument to justify the steps proposed by the Government was a complicated one. In putting down this Amendment, the position has been made clear beyond doubt, and I am grateful for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

ALTERATIONS IN TREATMENT OF YOUNG OFFENDERS ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 11, line 29, leave out "where" and insert:
and to section 53(1) of the Act of 1933 (which provides for detention for certain grave crimes), where a child is found guilty of homicide or

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time,

Lords Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 41, after "the" insert "child or".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The effect of both Amendments is to provide that, in the case of a child found guilty of an offence other than murder, an order may be made as for a young person.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10

FURTHER LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF PARTICULARS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS

Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 13, line 24, after "section" insert:
(a) the references to a young person con cerned in the proceedings as to the person in respect of whom they are taken shall be construed as including references to any person who has attained the age of seventeen but not eighteen and against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken and, in the case of proceedings under Part I of this Act, any other person in respect of whom those proceedings are taken; and
(b) the references to a juvenile court shall, in relation to proceedings in pursuance of the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of this Act or on appeal from such proceedings, be construed as including a reference to any other magistrates' court or, as the case may be, the court in which the appeal is brought; and
(c)

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 18 and No. 20.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Amendment No. 17 replaces subsection (4) which is proposed to be left out of Clause 15 by Amendment No. 20. This subsection was inserted through an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Black-pool, North (Mr. Blaker) on Report and accepted by the Government. The Government appreciated at the time that some redrafting might be necessary to give a practical effect to this proposal.

Mr. Carlisle: This is a perfect example that, in drafting, any victory by the Opposition is usually short-lived. As the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Blaker) moved an Amendment to meet


this same point on Report, which was accepted by the Government. However, they then decided to change it in another place. I am sure that they will say that their wording is better. It certainly seems more complicated.
My hon. Friend's Amendment had four lines and has been replaced with two Amendments with 29 lines between them. They seem to do the same thing, which was, rightly, to avoid the publicity which could not have been given to a case when a young person appeared before the court being given at a later stage merely because the probation officer made an application for that person to be discharged because he had done well. It is because we felt that publicity would be wrong in that situation that we moved the original Amendment, and we welcome this slightly longer, but nevertheless similar, Amendment of the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO S.15

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 22: In page 19, line 28, at end insert:
( ) If on an application to a court under subsection (1) of the preceding section—
(a) the supervised person is brought before the court under a warrant issued or an interim order made by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section; or
(b) the court considers that it is likely to exercise its powers under that subsection to make an order in respect of the supervised person but, before deciding whether to do so, seeks information with respect to him which it considers is unlikely to be obtained unless the court makes an interim order in respect of him,
the court may make an interim order in respect of the supervised person".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Under the law, which is contained in Section 67 of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933, where a child under supervision is brought before a juvenile court, the court may make an interim order if it cannot decide at that time how to deal with him. The new subsection

gives the court a similar power where the supervised person is brought before a juvenile court under Clause 15(1). It applies when a warrant has been necessary to secure the presence of the supervised person, and when the making of an interim order is requisite for the obtaining of information—for example, a psychiatric report.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 23

REMAND TO CARE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 25: In page 27, line 16, after "court" insert "—
(a) remands or commits for trial a child charged with homicide or remands a child convicted of homicide; or
(b)".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Clause 23 deals with the remand of young persons in criminal proceedings. Since children under 14 may be prosecuted for homicide, it is necessary to provide for their remand and committal for trial, and the Amendment achieves this. The effect is that a child charged with homicide who is not released from bail will be committed to the care of the local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24

POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHO RITIES ETC. WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS COMMITTED TO THEIR CARE

Lords Amendment No. 26: In page 28, line 30, at end insert:
(4A) If a person who is subject to a care order and has attained the age of five is accommodated in a community home or other establishment which he has not been allowed to leave during the preceding three months for the purpose of ordinary attendance at an educational institution or at work and it appears to the local authority to whose care he is committed by the order that—
(a) communication between him and his parent or guardian has been so infrequent that it is appropriate to appoint a visitor for him; or


(b) he has not lived with or visited or been visited by either of his parents or his guardian during the preceding twelve months,
it shall be the duty of the authority to appoint an independent person to be his visitor for the purposes of this subsection; and a person so appointed shall—
(i) have the duty of visiting, advising and befriending the person to whom the care order relates; and
(ii) be entitled to exercise on behalf of that person his powers under section 21(2) of this Act; and
(iii) be entitled to recover from the authority who appointed him any expenses reasonably incurred by him for the purposes of his functions under this subsection.
In this section 'independent person' means a person satisfying such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with a view to securing that he is independent of the local authority in question and unconnected with any community home.
(4B) A person's appointment as a visitor in pursuance of the preceding subsection shall be determined if the care order in question ceases to be in force or he gives notice in writing to the authority who appointed him that he resigns the appointment or the authority give him notice in writing that they terminate it; but the determination of such an appointment shall not prejudice any duty under the preceding subsection to make a further appointment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment would provide a safeguard for children in care without parents or whose parents take no interest in them. This arises from a very full discussion in Committee in another place.

Mr. Goodhart: I welcome this Amendment, which I am happy to say was introduced as a result of an intervention from this side. I have three short questions to put to the Government. First, is it contemplated that the same person may well be the visitor for several children? I hope that, where possible, one visitor will deal with one child. Clearly, these will be emotionally deprived children and the more that one individual can concentrate on each the better
Second, is it contemplated that the visitor should be reimbursed for any expenses which he may incur? If he comes, as he should, from the community of which the child is normally a member, he may have to travel considerable distances as the community which he handles will now

be spread over a very wide area. I hope, also, that the visitor will from time to time take presents to the child, and the poor person may find this difficult.
Finally, the Amendment says that a visitor must be appointed if a child has not been visited in a home by his parents or guardian for 12 months. It is contemplated that the visitor should often be appointed well before 12 months have elapsed, perhaps after three or six months, and the longer period is a "long stop". I hope that the Home Office will send out a circular suggesting that visitors should be appointed well before the 12 months have passed.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: If I may speak again, with the leave of the House, I can shortly reply to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). First, there is no reason in law why the visitor could not act in a trust capacity towards a number of children. Secondly, it is envisaged that his expenses should be reimbursed. Thirdly, the statutory duty as set out in the Amendment matures only when the 12-month period is up. But I cannot see that there would be anything repugnant in principle to the appointment of a visitor before that period was up. The converse is not true. It does not preclude them from exercising their discretion to appoint.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

6.30 p.m.

New Clause "A"

TRANSFERS BETWEEN ENGLAND OR WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords Amendment No. 27: In page 29, line 3, at end insert new Clause "A":
A.—(1) If it appears to the Scretary of State, on the application of the welfare authority or the managers of the training school to whose care a person is committed by a fit person order or by virtue of a training school order, that his parent or guardian resides or will reside in the area of a local authority in England or Wales, the Secretary of State may make an order committing him to the care of that local authority; and while an order under this subsection is in force it shall have effect as if it were a care order and as if sections 20(2) and (3) and 21(1) and (5) of this Act were omitted and in section 29(3)(a) of this Act for the reference to section 20(3) there were substituted a reference to subsection (3) of this section.


(2) If it appears to the Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, on the application of the local authority to whose care a person is committed by a care order other than an interim order, that his parent or guardian resides or will reside in Northern Ireland, the said Minister may make an order committing him to the care of the managers of a training school or to the care of the welfare authority in whose area his parent or guardian resides or will reside; and the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (except sections 83(3)(a), 88(3), 90 and 91(3) shall apply to an order under this subsection as if it were a training school order made on the date of the care order or, as the case may he, a fit person order.
If an order under this subsection commits a person to the care of the managers of a training school, the contributions to be made in respect of him under section 161 of the said Act of 1968 shall be made by such council as may be named in that order, being the council within whose district his parent proposes to reside or is residing at the time of the order.
(3) When a person is received into the care of a local authority or welfare authority or the managers of a training school in pursuance of an order under this section, the training school order, fit person order or care order in consequence of which the order under this section was made shall cease to have effect; and the order under this section shall, unless it is discharged earlier, cease to have effect—
(a) in the case of an order under subsection (1), on the earlier of the following dates, that is to say, the date when the person to whom the order relates attains the age of nineteen or the date when, by the effiuxion of time, the fit person order aforesaid would have ceased to have effect or, as the case may be, the period of his detention under the training school order aforesaid would have expired;
(b) in the case of an order under subsection (2), on the date when the care order aforesaid would have ceased to have effect by the effiuxion of time or—
(i) if the person to whom the order relates is committed by it to the care of a welfare authority and will attain the age of eighteen before that date, when he attains that age;
(ii) if the order has effect by virtue of subsection (2) as a training school order and the period of supervision following the detention of the person in question in pursuance of the order expires before that date, when that period expires.
(4) An order under this section shall be sufficient authority for the detention in Northern Ireland, by any constable or by a person duly authorised by a local authority or welfare authority or the managers of a training school, of the person to whom the order relates until he is received into the care of the authority or managers to whose care he is committed by the order.
(5) In this section 'training school', 'training school order' and 'welfare authority'

have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1968, and 'fit person order' means an order under that Act committing a person to the care of a fit person.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause provides for the transfer to Northern Ireland of persons subject to English court orders and for the transfer to England or Wales of persons subject to Northern Ireland training school orders or fit person orders. These transfer provisions operate, as with the transfer provisions between England and Scotland which will be moved later, only where the parent or guardian of the child resides or will reside in the other country.
This can arise where after an order has been made in relation to the child the parent moves to the other country and it is desirable that the child should be moved there, too. Or it can arise, more exceptionally in the case of Northern Ireland, where a child resident in one country comes before a court in the other country.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B"

TRANSFERS BETWEEN ENGLAND OR WALES AND THE CHANNEL ISLANDS OR ISLE OF MAN

Lords Amendment No. 28: In page 29, line 3, at end insert new Clause "B":
B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order designate for the purposes of this section an order of any description which—
(a) a court in the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands is authorised to make by the law for the time being in force in that country; and
(b) provides for the committal to the care of a public authority of a person who has not attained the age of eighteen; and
(c) appears to the Secretary of State to be of the same nature as a care order other than an interim order;
and in this section 'relevant order' means an order of a description for the time being so designated and 'the relevant authority', in relation to a relevant order, means the authority in the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands to whose care the person to whom the order relates is, under the law of that country, committed by the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may authorise a local authority to receive into their care any person named in the authorisation who is the subject of a relevant order; and while such an authorisation is in force in respect


of any person he shall, subject to the following subsection, be deemed to be the subject of a care order committing him to the care of the local authority.
(3) This Act shall have effect, in relation to a person in respect of whom an authorisation under this section is in force, as if sections 20(2) and (3), 21 and 29 and in section 25(4) the words from 'and if' onwards were omitted; and it shall be the duty of a local authority who propose, in exercise of their powers under section 13(2) of the Children Act 1948, to allow such a person to be under the charge and control of a person residing outside England and Wales to consult the relevant authority before exercising those powers.
(4) An authorisation given to a local authority under this section shall cease to have effect when—
(a) the local authority is informed by the Secretary of State that he has revoked it; or
(b) the relevant order to which the authorisation relates ceases to have effect by the effluxion of time under the law of the place where the order was made or the local authority is informed by the relevant authority that the order has been discharged under that law; or
(c) the person to whom the relevant order relates is again received into the care of the relevant authority;
and if a local authority having by virtue of this section the care of a person to whom a relevant order relates is requested by the relevant authority to make arrangements for him to be received again into the care of the relevant authority, it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the request.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Clause provides for the accommodation, in the care of local authorities in England and Wales, of children and young persons subject to court orders made in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
The law, which is contained in Section 83 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, provides that, if the insular law enables children or young persons over 17 years of age to be sent to approved schools in England, a child or young person with respect to whom such an order is made may be received into such approved school as the Secretary of State may direct. He is then treated as though he were subject to an approved school order under our law.
Following the abolition of the approved school order procedure in England and Wales this will no longer be possible, and

it was necessary to make other arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26

DETENTION OF CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON IN PLACE OF SAFETY

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 33: In page 30, line 32, after "warrant" insert "otherwise than for homicide".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall take the following Lords Amendments: Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: All these Amendments deal with children charged with homicide. A child under 14 years of age is dealt with under Clause 26(4). If he is not released the police are required to arrange his detention in a place of safety. Except in a case of homicide, any proceedings brought will be care proceedings. When the child is brought before a court, if the court does not release him it will make an interim order. Clause 27 deals with the arrest of young persons for an offence. Since proceedings will normally be criminal proceedings, the Clause provides that if they are not released they are to be brought before a court with a view to remand.
The object of the Amendments is to exclude children under 14 arrested for homicide from Clause 26, which is the Clause appropriate to care proceedings, and to include them in Clause 27, which is the Clause appropriate to criminal proceedings. This is a consequence of retaining the prosecution of children under 14 for homicide.
As regards the places in which children can be detained, as opposed to the circumstances justifying the authority for detention, there is no significant difference between the two Clauses.

Mr. Carlisle: I had intended to ask no questions on this point, but, having listened to the Under-Secretary, I must


ask him whether the Government have considered the transitional position. It is the intention to raise to 12 at the first stage the age of those who will not be prosecuted. Presumably the child who is still a child but who is 13 years of age could come within the provisions of Section 27. Is that so?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The answer——

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to reply he must seek the leave of the House.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought that I was intervening with your consent and that of the House. If I may have the leave of the House I should like to assure the hon. Member that this point has been seen and that we deal with the matter correctly.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30

DETENTION OF ABSENTEES

Lords Amendment No. 41: In page 34, line 30, at end insert:
,or
(d) a person sent to a remand home, special reception centre or training school or committed to the care of a fit person under the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968".

Mr. Elysian Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are discussing the following Lords Amendments: Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The net result of the Amendments is to provide for an arrest in England and Wales or Scotland of absconders from Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 45

DISCONTINUANCE BY VOLUNTARY ORGANISATION OF CONTROLLED OR ASSISTED COMMUNITY HOME

Lords Amendment No. 49: In page 49, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:

(b) the Secretary of State may by order direct that for the purposes of any provision specified in the direction and made by or under any enactment relating to community homes (other than this section) the home shall, until the date or earlier date specified as mentioned in subsection (4)(b) of this section, be treated as an assisted community home or as a controlled community home, but except in so far as the Secretary of State so directs, the home shall until that date be treated for the purposes of any such enactment as a community home provided by the local authority;".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a minor Amendment to enable a voluntary community home to continue to be treated as if within the home system after notice of withdrawal from that system has been given.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 51

MODIFICATION OF DUTY OF PERSONS MAINTAINING FOSTER CHILDREN TO NOTIFY LOCAL AUTHORITY

Lords Amendment No. 52: In page 54, line 40, at end insert:
and been required by virtue of the following provisions of this section to give notice under subsection (SA) of this section in respect of those premises.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking the following Lords Amendments: Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56, 119, 120, 121 and 122.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: These are minor Amendments to Section 3 of the Children Act, 1958. They meet a point raised by the Opposition in Standing Committee which the Government undertook to consider. It was pointed out in Committee that the word after the semicolon in Section 3(5) of the 1958 Act did not fit with the rest of section 3 as it was proposed to be amended. These Amendments accordingly delete those words and replace them with a new subsection (5)(b).
The effect will be that a person who ceases to maintain foster children temporarily but expects to receive them back within 27 days will not be required to notify the local authority of this temporary absence unless that person abandons his intention to have the child or children back within that period or alternatively that period expires before the children come back.
The Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association agree that this is a sensible provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "C"

EXTRADITION OFFENCES

Lords Amendment No. 59: In page 60, line 11, at end insert:
C.—(1) There shall be included—
(a) in the list of extradition crimes contained in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870; and
(b) among the descriptions of offences set out in Schedule 1 to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967,
any offence of the kind discribed in section I of the Act of 1933 (which relates to cruelty to persons under sixteen) and any offence of the kind described in section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as derogating from the provisions of section 17 of the said Act of 1870 or section 16(2) or 17 of the said Act of 1967 in their application to any provisions of those Acts respectively as amended by the preceding subsection.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment provides that certain offences relating to children are included among extradition crimes under the Extradition Act.

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot resist the temptation to remind the House that it was on this Amendment in another place that Lord Stonham said that he had a seven-page brief to read to explain it, but that instead he preferred to move it formally. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has decided not to read a seven-page brief but has, instead, simplified the matter in a sentence.
My hon. Friends and I appreciate the work which Lord Stonham did throughout the time the Bill was in another place and the enormous amount of work he did the whole time he was Minister of State at the Home Office.
I understand that the Amendment merely says, in effect, that the ill-treatment of children is, under this provision, an extradictable offence, something with which all hon. Members will agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60

RETURNS OF INFORMATION AND PRESENTATION OF REPORTS, ETC. TO PARLIAMENT

Lords Amendment No. 60: In page 62, line 44, at end insert:
( ) The clerk of each juvenile court shall, art such times and in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, transmit to him such particulars as he may require with respect to the proceedings of the court

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment requires the clerk of the juvenile court to provide the Secretary of State with any particulars that are required for statistical purposes, as recommended by the Adams Committee.

Mr. Carlisle: May I have an assurance that was sought by the noble Viscount Colville in another place, namely, whether the statistics which will be provided under this provision are likely to explain the type of offence for which the child is brought before the court? As the noble Lord pointed out, it is important that we know the purpose for which these statistics will be used.
May I also have an assurance about the wording of the Amendment, which is wide? It enables the Secretary of State to call for information from the clerk of the justices court for particulars with respect to the proceedings of that court. Do I take it that it is intended that this should be limited to requiring particulars for the compilation of statistics and that it is in no way being suggested that the provision could be used as a means of asking for a report from the clerk about something concerned with the behaviour of the court?
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will wish to take this opportunity to reiterate that such a matter should always be one for the Lord Chancellor's Department, and not for the Home Office. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give that assurance, since one might get a different impression from reading the Amendment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: At present, the criminal statistics contain a table which shows the number of children and young persons dealt with by caution as well as tables showing the numbers dealt with by prosecution. Arrangements will be made with the police for information to be collected about the number of juvenile offenders dealt with, including those dealt with by prosecution, court proceedings, caution or reference to local authority children's departments. This information will be published and, in addition, tables will be published in the criminal statistics showing the results of proceedings against young persons. Tables will also be published showing court proceedings and the grounds on which those proceedings were brought.
As for the second assurance sought by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), I assure him that this only comes within the scope I have mentioned in connection with the matters for which information will be sought.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 61: In page 65, line 23, leave out "37 or 41(5)" and insert:
(Transfers between England or Wales and Northern Ireland), 37 or 41(5) or paragraph 21 or 22 of Schedule 4".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: That would be convenient. The first three Amendments are technical, excepting from the general

provision of Clause 66 that Orders shall be made by Statutory Instrument and be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, certain Orders in relation to which this provision would be inappropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 65: In page 65, line 39, leave out from "provision" to end of line 43.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
If it is agreeable to the House, I suggest that we discuss with this Amendment Lords Amendment No. 71.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Amendment No. 71 enables an appointed day Order to contain such transitional provisions as appear appropriate, having regard to the chronological order in which the provisions of the Bill and the closely related provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968 are brought into force. Amendment No. 65 is consequential on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 67

INTERPRETATION AND ANCILLARY PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment No. 67: In page 67, line 35, at beginning insert:
Subject to the following subsection,

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 68.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, because both of these technical Amendments relate to the


Interpretation of references to enactments of the Northern Irish Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 69

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, MINOR AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS, ETC.

Lords Amendment No. 69: In page 68, line 1, at end insert ("Part I of").

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Lords Amendments Nos. 70, 82 and 94.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: That would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, because Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 represent a new subsection which is a paving subsection for Part II of Schedule 4. This contains transitional provisions which will have effect between the coming into force of the provisions of the Bill and the coming into force of some provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968.
As this is the first Amendment dealing with cross-Border provisions between England and Wales and Scotland, it might be appropriate if I were to make some general remarks about these provisions as a whole. At present, the law in force in England and Scotland is similar, and the provisions for the transfer of approved school orders, probation orders and supervision orders are comparatively simple. The Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968, introduces an entirely new system in Scotland, but the relevant provisions of that Act are not yet in force and are not expected to be brought into force before about the end of next year.
The Scottish Act abolishes the prosecution of children under 16, except on the authority of the Lord Advocate, and provides for children who commit offences or who are broadly in situations equivalent to those in Clause 1(2) of the Bill to appear before children's hearings. The hearings have power to make supervision requirements, which may require children

to reside in residential establishments and which are effective up to the age of 18.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act contains provisions for movement between the existing English system and the new Scottish system. I shall later be moving to agree to Amendments to that Act and to other Acts which will make permanent provision for movement between the new English and the new Scottish systems. Because of the differences between those systems these provisions are inevitably much more complicated than the cross-border provisions in the existing law. This is a price which has to be paid for a different approach to the question, although with the same basic aims, north and south of the Border.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 70

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 72: In page 68, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) This section and the following provisions only of this Act extend to Scotland, that is to say—
(a)sections 10(1) and (2), 30(1), (3) and (4), 54 and 55(1);
(b)section 69(2) and Part II of Schedule 4;
(c)paragraphs 22A, 22B, 29, 31, 34, 37A, 37B, 46A, 47 and 49 to 75 of Schedule 5 and section 69(2) so far as it relates to those paragraphs;
(d)section 69(3) and Schedule 6 so far as they relate to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948, sections 10, 53. 55 and 59 of the Act of 1963, the Family Allowances Act 1965 and the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
(4) This section and the following provisions only of this Act extend to Northern Ireland, that is to say—
(a)sections (Transfers between England or Wales and Northern Ireland) and 30;
(b)section 69(2) and Schedule 5 so far as they relate to section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 and provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which extend to Northern Ireland; and
(c) section 69(3) and Schedule 6 so far as they relate to section 83 of the Act of 1933, paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937,


section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961, sections 10(1) and (2), 53(1) and 65(5) of, and paragraphs 27, 34 and 50 of Schedule 3 to, the Act of 1963 and sections 73(2), 76(1) and (2) and 77(1)(b) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;
and section 30(2) and (3) of this Act shall be treated for the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as if it had been passed before the day appointed for the said section 6 to come into operation.
(5) Section (Transfers between England or Wales and the Channel islands or Isle of Man) of this Act and this section, and section 69(3) of this Act and Schedule 6 to this Act so far as they relate to paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 and section 53(1) of, and paragraph 34 of Schedule 3 to, the Act of 1963, extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and section 30(1) and (4) of this Act and this section extend to the Channel Islands.
(6) It is hereby declared that the provisions of sections 66 and 67 of this Act extend to each of the countries aforesaid so far as is appropriate for the purposes of any other provisions of this Act extending to the country in question.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to point out that a slight misprint occurs in the Amendment in that "(b) section 69(2)" should read "(b) section 69(1)(a)".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is a technical Amendment relating to extent. In general, the provisions of the Bill have effect as part of the law of England and Wales only, but certain provisions must, of their nature, extend to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Isles, or the Isle of Man, and the Amendment so provides.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Lords Amendment No. 83: In page 81, line 10, at end insert:
or from being dealt with under any of those Acts.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that the prohibition in

Clause 4 on proceedings for offences committed by children does not extend to proceedings under the Armed Forces Discipline Acts in respect of acts or omissions which took place overseas.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 85: In page 81, line 18, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:
5.—(1) The coming into force of section 7(1) or of an order under section 32(1)(d) of this Act shall not affect any sentence of borstal training passed before the date when the said section 7(1) or the order came into force or any committal for sentence before that date under section 28(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952; but a sentence of borstal training shall not be passed on any person (including a person to whom such a committal relates) if on the date of the relevant conviction he had not attained the minimum age which is for the time being specified in section 20(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948.
(2) Nothing in section 7(2) of this Act affects a probation order made before the coming into force of the said section 7(2).

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is a transitional provision preserving sentences of borstal training and probation orders made before the coming into force of Clause 7.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 87: In page 82, line 38, at end insert:
(6A) References to an approved school order in this paragraph, except in sub-paragraph (2)(a), include references to an order of the competent authority under subsection (1) of section 83 of the Act of 1933 and such an order as is mentioned in subsection (3) of that section; and in relation to those orders this paragraph shall have effect as if for subparagraph (2)(a) there were substituted the following—
(a) to be the subject of a care order made by a court in England on the date when the order for his detention in a school was made under the relevant law mentioned in section 83 of the Act of 1933 and committing him to the care of a local authority nominated in relation to him by the Secretary of State; and".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment has the effect of providing that persons under 19 years of age who have been transferred from Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to be subject to care orders in place of approved orders on the appointed day.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 90: In page 83, line 23, leave out paragraph 12 and insert:
12.—(1) Where a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 to 1963 is in force on the date when this paragraph comes into force or where an order under section 52 of the Act of 1963 (whether made before, on or after that date) falls to be treated by virtue of subsection (3) of that section as a supervision order under the Act of 1933, the order and, in relation to the order, any enactment amended or repealed by this Act shall, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, have effect as if this Act had not been passed; and the order may be altered or revoked accordingly.
(2) A juvenile court before which the person to whom such a supervision order relates is brought after the date aforesaid in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 66 of the Act of 1933 shall not have power to make such an order as is mentioned in that subsection in respect of him but shall instead have power to revoke the supervision order and make a care order in respect of him on being satisfied that he is unlikely to receive the care or control he needs unless the court makes a care order; and section 6(1) of the Act of 1963 shall not apply in a case where the court exercises its power under this sub-paragraph.
(3) Where such a supervision order contains a provision requiring residence in an institution which has become a community home, the provision shall be construed as requiring residence in the home; and in such a case any reference to an institution of the kind in question in rules under the Criminal Justice Act 1948 providing for the making of payments to the body or person by whom the institution is managed shall be construed as a reference to the home.
(4) References to a supervision order in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph include references to an order under the said section 52.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment inserts a new paragraph 12 into Schedule 4. This paragraph contains transitional provisions for supervision orders made under the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933–1963

which are in force on the date when the new code of supervision in Clauses 11 to 19 come into force.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 91: In page 83, line 39, leave out "commencement" and insert "passing".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The word "commencement" is inappropriate, because there will be different dates on which different provisions of the Bill will be brought into force.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to

Schedule 5

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Lords Amendment No. 96: In page 85, line 2, at end insert:
3A. In section 46 of the Act of 1933, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) If a notification that the accused desires to plead guilty without appearing before the court is received by the clerk of a court in pursuance of section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1957 and the court has no reason to believe that the accused is a child or young person, then, if he is a child or young person he shall be deemed to have attained the age of seventeen for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section in its application to the proceedings in question.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment has the effect of allowing an adult court to act on an admission of guilt of a person from a young person if there is no reason to believe that the person is under the age of 17.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 98: In page 87, line 17, at end insert:
17A. In section 43(1) of the said Act of 1948 for the words from "Parts IV and V" on wards there shall be substituted the words "the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 to 1969, the Adoption Act 1958 and the Adoption Act 1968".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Section 43 of the Children Act, 1948 enables the Secretary of State to appoint an advisory council on child care for the purpose of advising him on matters connected with the discharge of his function in England and Wales under the 1948 Act and a number of other enactments dealing with children and young persons. The effect of the Amendment is to make the purpose of the advisory council to advise the Secretary of State on matters connected with the discharge of his function under all the enactments dealing with children and young persons, and with adoption.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 101: In page 89, line 2, leave out "from 'in the care of' to".

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, we will take Lords Amendments Nos. 103, 111, 117 and 118.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: These Amendments are primarily of a technical character. Under Section 2(4) of the Children Act, 1958 as amended by paragraph 25 of Schedule 5, a child would not be a foster child for the purposes of that Act if subject to a supervision order. However, the making of a supervision order only disturbs the foster-parent and foster-child relationship where it transfers the care of the child to someone else, and only in that case should the child be placed outside the definition of foster-child. The first two of these Amendments secure this, and the fifth Amendment is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 105: In page 90, line 20, at end insert:
The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960
37A. In section 10(1)(a) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960, for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following subparagraph:—

(ii) section 24 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (which relates to the powers and duties of local authorities in England and Wales with respect to persons committed to their care);
37B. In section 46 of the said Act of 1960, for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
(b)section 24 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (which relates to the powers and duties of local authorities in England and Wales with respect to persons committed to their care);

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The new paragraphs which it is proposed to insert in Schedule 5 make amendments to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, consequential on the substitution by the Bill of care orders or fit person orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Lords Amendment No. 115: In page 98, line 38, column 3, at beginning insert:
In section 72(2), the words 'of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to 1963 or as the case may be', the word 'respectively' and the words 'to a supervision order within the meaning of section 5 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 or'.
In section 73(2), the word 'juvenile'.
In section 74, in subsection (3) the words 'in England or Wales or' and 'if he thanks fit' and the words from 'an approved' to 'be' where it first occurs, in subsection (4) the words from 'the Children' to 'be of', the words 'an approved school or' in the first, second and third places where they occur, the word 'of' and 'in' following those words in the first and third of those places respectively and the words 'section 71 of the said Act of 1933 or' and 'section 90 of the said Act of 1933 or under', and in subsection (5) the words 'of the Acts of 1933 to 1963 or as the case may be', the words 'of a local authority or as the case may be' and the words 'those Acts or.'
In section 75, in subsection (1) the words' the Secretary of State or' and approved school or', and


in subsection (3) the words 'approved school or'.
In section 76, in subsections (1) and (2) the word 'juvenile' wherever it occurs, and in subsection (4) the words 'approved school or' and 'of the approved school or'.
Section 77(1)(b).
In section 90(1) the words or to prescribe any matter,'.
In Schedule 2, in paragraph 10 the words from 'and' to '1933'.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is of a technical character and has the effect of repealing parts of Part V of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 116: In line 39, column 3, after "18" insert ",21".

Mr.Elystan Morgan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment has broadly the same effect as Lords Amendment No. 115.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to two of their Amendments to the Bill; Mr. Carlisle, Mr. Gregor Mackenzie, Mr. Millan, Mr. Elystan Morgan, and Mr. Worsley; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to two of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I posted up, as is my wont, my selection of Amendments for this stage. The first Amendment selected is the new Clause 1:
Certain provisions of Part II of Act of 1954 set out as amended.
I suggest that we debate with that new Clause new Schedule, Amendment No. 21:
Certain provisions of Part II of Act of 1954 set out as amended.
We shall not debate the Amendments to the new Schedule until we arrive at that point, for they may not arise. It all depends on what happens before that time.

New Clause 1

CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PART II OF ACT OF 1954 SET OUT AS AMENDED

Sections 24, 27, 30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 42 and 44 of the Act of 1954 and Schedule 6 to that Act, and section 43(3) of that Act as it applies to tenancies granted after the commencement of this Act, are set out as amended by this Part of this Act in Schedule (Certain provisions of Part II of Act of 1954 set out amended) to this Act.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause and the new Schedule are to implement my noble Friend's undertaking on Report in another place that the Bill would contain a Schedule reproducing Sections of the 1954 Act amended by the Bill which I repeated in the Second Reading Committee. The new Clause lists all amended provisions as set out in the new Schedule covered by the Sections of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, amended by Part I of the Bill, with two very minor exceptions where reproduction in the Schedule we think would be disproportionate.
Section 41 of the 1954 Act, which is amended by Clause 1(2) only to the


extent of inserting a reference to a subparagraph, is not included in the Schedule because that amendment on analysis is trivial and purely consequential. Section 43, subsection (3) of which is amended, is not set out in the Schedule, only the subsection being reproduced.
I hope that this treatment of the matter will be acceptable to the House. It is I think an undoubted convenience and I hope that it will prove useful to practitioners and others who become involved in these matters.

Mr. Graham Page: One of the most useful forms of legislation in practice is what we call a "Keeling Schedule" such as we have before us in a new Schedule to which the Solicitor-General has referred. This form has already been adopted in this Bill in connection with reform of the law relating to restrictive covenants and Section 84 of the law of Property Act, 1925. It is very convenient to have Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, set out in a similar way.
Although we are grateful for the adoption of this form of legislation so far as it relates to leases of business premises, we are still left with a title to the Bill which does not deal with this subject at all. We are dealing now with the landlord and tenant relationship and the title to the Bill gives little clue as to that. The one criticism I have of the new Clause and the Schedule is that it would have been more helpful to reprint the whole of Part II of the 1954 Act.
As the Schedule stands at the moment it selects certain Sections and, indeed, not all of those which are amended in the Bill. It leaves out several Clauses. True some of them were not amended. But it leaves out some Clauses which are to be amended by the Bill. That necessitates the practitioner turning back to the 1954 Act itself to read the full story.
This impairs the practical use of a Schedule of this sort. Furthermore, it omits new Clauses which are to be introduced into this part of the 1954 Act by the Bill—that is, the several Clauses marked in the Bill with a capital A. There is new Clause 24A, new Clause 31A, new Clause 41A, and 43A. These are all omitted from the Keeling Schedule. The Schedule would have been of much more practical use if the

Solicitor-General could have persuaded the Government to spend the money on a few more lines of print. It would not have been many more; we have a substantial enough Schedule as it is. It would not have doubled the length of the Schedule, but it would have doubled the value of the Schedule, to have the whole of Part II of the 1954 Act set out—in fact, the consolidation of that part of the Act—so that the practitioner did not have to refer from this Schedule to the Bill back to the Act itself in order to obtain the full story.
My other comment on the Schedule is a disappointment that it retains, without Amendment, the compensation provisions in Section 37 of the 1954 Act—that is, when the renewal of a lease is refused because the re-developer or the landlord takes over the property himself. In those cases the compensation seems to some people to be inadequate. Although the Bill contains many Amendments to the 1954 Act, as shown in the Schedule, the Government have apparently not considered this point, which is, to the general public and the practitioners who have to deal with the renewal of business leases, the most important issue of the whole subject It appears to many of them that the law as it stands provides inadequate compensation when a business is taken over by the landlord for his own purposes.
On the other hand, I appreciate that if a large amount of compensation is awarded in such cases it is a hindrance to development. But we should have been told by the Government why they shirked dealing with the biggest issue on the question of the renewal of business leases. The subject has not been touched upon in the Bill. I had hoped that the opportunity would have been taken to explain to the House the present position in respect of compensation in those cases and, if the Government are right in not dealing with it, the facts on which they have decided not to deal with the subject. However, we welcome the Schedule as far as it goes. It is useful for the practitioner. It could have been made a little more useful, but we must not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2

CERTIFICATES OF TITLE

(1) In transactions to which this section applies, a person (in this section called the transferee) who is acquiring land (meaning in this section any estate or interest in land) shall not be entitled to require the person (in this section called the transferor) from whom he is acquiring the land to deduce any title to the land earlier than the date of the acquisition of the land by the transferor.

(2) This section applies to transactions in which the transferor of land which is not registered under the Land Registration Act 1925 produces a Certificate of Title to the land and—
(a) had simultaneously with his acquisition of the land deposited the documents of title thereto with a bank, a building society or an insurance company and has since that time kept them so deposited, or
(b) agrees to provide for the transferee of the land a policy of insurance indemnifying the transferee against loss due to any material error in or omission from the Certificate of Title to that land.

(3) The Certificate of Title shall contain information concerning the land of the same nature as and in a form similar to that which would have been contained in a Land Certificate or Charge Certificate (as the case may be) if the land had been registered under the Land Registration Act 1925 and shall be verified—
(a) by the signature of the immediate predecessor in title of the transferor as to its accuracy at the date of the acquisition of the land by the transferor,
(b) by a signature on behalf of the bank, society or company aforesaid (if the documents of title shall have been deposited as described in subsection (a) of this section) as to the period of such deposit, and
(c) by the signature of the transferor as to its accuracy at the date of the contract for the acquisition of the land by the transferee.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move That the Clause be read a Second time.
On the Notice Paper this looks rather a formidable Clause, but it is an effort to simplify conveyancing. We ought not to allow a Law of Property Bill to go through the House without making some effort to simplify the transfer of property. Perhaps I ought to say "property or land", but we are talking generally about the transfer of homes. This is where the law needs simplifying—not, perhaps, in the case of the transfer of massive estates or large blocks of flats, offices or industrial premises, but in the normal conveyancing

which goes through any solicitor's office and which is now in a very complicated form, namely, the transfer of the ordinary dwelling house.
Frequently, both inside and outside the House, we hear complaints that the cost of transferring a house from one person to another is crippling, especially in the case of the purchaser and again in the case of a young married couple buying their home and having to find the cost of the furniture and, on top, the cost of the solicitor carrying out the transaction for them.
But when the time spent by the solicitor on this sort of work is analysed it is found that his charges are in no way out of step with those made in other professions. Those charges are statutorily fixed. Therefore, if, on a time basis, the solicitor's charges are fair and reasonable compared with those of other professions, the only way of reducing those costs on the transfer of property is by reducing the volume of work which the law requires to be done—and not which the practitioner makes for himself. The law requires this work to be done in order to provide a purchaser with a good title to the property.
7.15 p.m.
This is what the registration of land endeavours to do. Where property is registered at Her Majesty's Land Registry the work involved in the transfer of the land is much less and, as a result, the costs are lower. They are fixed lower statutorily and the smaller amount of work is recognised in that way. In the case of unregistered land the Bill reduces the work necessary to be done by reducing from 30 years to 15 years the normal length of title. But there will still have to be the examination of at least a 15 years' title, and perhaps a little more. Many deeds will have to be examined, in some cases. There will also be the drawing of the conveyance, which is a comparatively long and complicated document.
In the case of registered land, however, the land certificate or the charge certificate itself is the title, and the transfer is a comparatively simple document. As I have said before, it is most regrettable, that the Government forbad voluntary registration, which could have increased the area of land and properties which


became registered. May I ask rhetorically why the purchaser should accept a land certificate as a good title to the property. All that he is looking at is a statement that a certain piece of land or a certain house belong to a Mr. X and may be subject to some restrictive covenants or a mortgage. He is not looking behind Mr. X's title. Why does he accept it as a title to the property when it may have become encumbered before Mr. X acquired it, or when he may not have acquired it properly? It is because the Land Registry ensures that the certificate was right. The purchaser from Mr. X is entitled to rely on the Land Registry's warranty and the certificate, and if it is wrong because of an error of the Registry the person who suffers receives compensation. It is guaranteed to be correct.
Pending the registration of all land, which one hopes we shall progress to in 20 or 30 years, would it not be worth while to have a land certificate for unregistered property, not insured by the Land Registry but in the normal way, by an insurance company? That is what the new Clause proposes—a sort of "Do-it-Yourself" certificate of title. I do not mean to deprive the professional man of his job and his fees. That is the last thing that I wish to do, being a lawyer myself. Perhaps I should have declared an interest. But I see no reason why we should not do the conveyancing in exactly the same form for unregistered property as for registered property, and insure the title.
The insurance of title is a well known and quite common practice at present. Insurance against claims for breach of covenant, where restrictive covenants have been broken in the past, requires only a paltry premium. Then there is insurance for the protection of a squatter's title. If someone has been in possession of property without an adverse claim over a certain time it can be insured. In many ways the insurance of title is well recognised. I see no reason why a vendor should not think it worth while, for the speed of conveyancing and the transfer of his property, to have his own certificate of title, in the same way as if it were registered property, and to insure it. But the Clause goes a step further than that. It proposes that in certain cases even insurance is unnecessary.
Let me use the ordinary example of the suburban house. The suburban house these days is normally purchased subject to a building society mortgage. I should think that a very high percentage of purchases is now carried out by means of building society mortgages. In those cases the purchaser's solicitor and the building society's solicitor investigate the title, and simultaneously with the purchaser buying the property and getting the conveyance of the property to himself, the conveyance and the documents of title are handed over by the vendor's solicitor to the building society's solicitor. They remain there till the mortgage is paid off or until the property is sold.
As on an average property is sold every seven to nine years—these are figures given by the building societies themselves—in that period of time the property is sold again aid, as the law stands at the moment, the same process is laboriously carried out—the purchaser's solicitor investigating the title, the new building society's solicitor investigating it, and so on all over again.
Why go through all that investigation again? Suppose that on a purchase, the purchaser draws up his own land certificate which his vendor signs as being correct, and that is put with the deeds which are handed over by the vendor. On the sale, if those deeds have been with the building society all the time, the building society so certifies, and this surely is a good enough assurance to a purchaser that the title of his vendor was good immediately after the vendor himself had purchased and that the deeds themselves have remained with the building society and could not have been charged or in some way encumbered since then. Of course, the present vendor would have to deduce his title subsequent to his purchase, but it would make it unnecessary for he present purchaser to go behind the vendor's title.
There are the proposals contained in this Clause—in one case to have a certificate of title backed by ordinary insurance so that the purchaser would not have to look behind his vendor's title, and in some cases where the deeds have been retained by a building society or bank or insurance company the purchaser should be entitled to accept the title of his vendor without going behind


it. This may not be an absolutely watertight form of conveyancing, but it is at least an effort to use this Bill, which after all is called the Law of Property Bill, to meet the difficulties which are now suffered by those purchasing property.
I am disappointed that the Government have not done something in this Bill to simplify conveyancing and to reduce costs. This is a matter which has been raised again and again in the House and it is high time that something was done about it. May I assure the House that solicitors do not want to charge the costs they are charging if the work is reduced. Solicitors do not want to do the sort of work which the law requires them to do at present when there are simpler ways of doing it for which they need not charge so much. They would earn their living by greater production of conveyancing in quicker time than by taking the money for obeying an antique and obsolete law in many cases.
I hope that we may have some response from the Solicitor-General and that at least this new form of conveyancing might be tried out so that the costs and the time of conveyancing might be saved.

The Solicitor-General: I recognise and appreciate the amount of study that has gone into this proposed new Clause and the background to it. In putting to the House that it is wise in all the circumstances to resist the Clause, I do not want that to be regarded as in any way derogatory to the observations that I have just made; nor do I really expect to persuade the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) as to the merits of my reasons.
This Clause is designed to simplify unregistered conveyancing by eliminating much of the work by deducing title to property on a sale. The Clause enables the vendor to require the purchaser to accept a title going back no further than the date on which the vendor acquired his title. A vendor may take advantage of this right, it is proposed, if he does three things—if he deposits his documents of title in safe custody with a bank or other institution when he acquires the land; if he agrees to insure the purchaser against loss arising from a defective title; and if he produces a certificate of title

verified by various persons concerned, a certificate of title similar to the land certificate issued by the Land Registry in relation to registered titles.
The Clause produces a scheme of considerable elaboration which could only be accepted, we feel, if acceptance were warranted after the most thorough consultation with the Law Society, the Law Commission, the banks, building societies, insurance companies, the Land Registry and other interested bodies. Of course, the need in certain circumstances for such a scale of inquiry and investigation is one which, it can reasonably be argued, should be fulfilled. It could be said that these researches and inquiries should be carried out. But an inquiry on that very considerable scale, if it took place in the context that the House is at present considering, would be taking place during the few remaining years of transition from the unregistered to the registered system of conveyancing.
The House will remember that it is hoped that compulsory registration of title will be extended to all urban areas in England and Wales by about the end of 1973, and I think it is reasonable to ask the House to remember, therefore, that we are considering a possible improvement in the context of impending change.
7.30 p.m.
The proposal in the new Clause would complicate the careful examination of title which is required when a title is produced to the Land Registry for first registration and it appears to be unlikely to offer the prospect of a substantial reduction in the cost of conveyancing. I say that because I would have thought that the kind of risk that the new Clause contemplates as an insurable risk will have the result that insurance premiums are likely to be substantial. There is some reason to think that the insurance companies would not be immediately responsive to the proposal.
It is on the whole rather unattractive in principle to purchasers, who normally prefer to have the land they have bought rather than an indemnity for its loss, such as is here proposed. The content of the new Clause seems similar to an earlier scheme, the title certificate book scheme, which was devised by the Law Society in 1965. It was rejected by my noble Friend on the ground that it would


not produce sufficient advantages swiftly enough to effect any substantial reduction in costs before the registered conveyancing system was extended over most of England and Wales.
If that decision was right when it was given, and I believe it was, then that conclusion is a fortiori a sound one now. So far as the new Clause concerns reduction of work in deducing titles, as the hon. Member for Crosby said, it offers little more than is already provided by Clause 22 of the Bill, which reduces from 30 to 15 years the period for which title can be required to be shown, since many vendors have owned their land for 15 years or more. Vendors who have owned land for less than 15 years are unlikely, we think, to wish to insure the purchaser unless the title really is defective.
I recognise the work that has gone into this and I can assure the House that this matter has received careful consideration. I am doubtful whether I would have persuaded the hon. Member, with the reasons I have put forward that the new Clause should be resisted, but I feel bound to emphasise the substance in these reasons.

Mr. Graham Page: Anyone can pick holes in a new procedure. It cannot be produced as watertight at the very outset. I recognise the strength of some of the criticisms which the Solicitor-General has put forward. Where he must have disappointed the House was in giving us no indication that the Government realise the importance of this subject. To say that we are in the transitional period, moving towards all land being registered land, is the height of optimism. I cannot believe that at the rate compulsory registration is proceeding we will get anywhere near that by 1973, or even 1983 or 1993 unless a very great increase in the staff is achieved at the Land Registry. I do not think that there are the professional people to staff it to that extent.
I would have hoped that the Solicitor-General could have given some indication that the Government intended to carry out the sort of research and consultation he mentioned. He said, correctly, that it is a scheme of some elaboration—it is also of some simplification. It would need consultation with a great number of bodies but this is an important matter.

Do the Government not intend to carry out any consultations of this sort? Can he give the House any assurance that they will make a serious effort to reduce the costs of conveyancing?
A few years ago the Law Society put forward a scheme, I am not arguing for or against it, of the title certificate book, which the hon. and learned Member has mentioned. All that it got from the Lord Chancellor was a bucket of cold water. He said that any scheme of this sort would be overtaken by registration of all land and at the same time he stopped voluntary land registration. That seems to be the only real contribution, or supposed contribution, to conveyancing. It is very disappointing that the Solicitor-General has not given the House some assurance that the Government really consider this to be an important matter, not just a legal matter but one affecting the pockets of ordinary people.

The Solicitor-General: I can give that assurance now. We recognise that it is an important matter, but that does not affect the reasons I have put forward.

Mr. Graham Page: It follows that if the Government recognise it as an important matter they should consult with all those people the Solicitor-General has mentioned and see whether some better scheme for conveyancing cannot be devised

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

IMPROVEMENTS TO BE DISREGARDED IN FIXING RENT

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
'(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, an improvement carried out by a tenant for which he or his successor has been reimbursed otherwise than by another tenant of the property shall not be disregarded in fixing the rent under a new tenancy of the property.
This is an Amendment which deals with the improvements to be disregarded in the assessment of rent when a business tenancy is renewed. When a business tenancy expires the tenant is entitled to a renewal of his lease, except in certain circumstances, set out in the 1954 Act, at a market rent. Certain things, as set out


in Section 34 of the 1954 Act, have to be disregarded in arriving at that rent. One of the things which has to be so disregarded is an improvement made by the tenant.
However, the tenant may have made the improvement but he may have been reimbursed with the cost of that improvement. Obviously, he should not benefit twice in those circumstances. As the Clause stands it is not clear what happens when the tenant has been reimbursed for such expenditure. Read logically, the Clause would mean that they are still left out of account in calculating the rent on renewal. We discussed this matter in Committee, when the Solicitor-General called attention to the position where an out-going tenant may be reimbursed by an incoming tenant for the money which he had spent on improvements.
Under those circumstances, it would be unfair for the incoming tenant who may remain there until the end of the lease to have those improvements taken into account in calculating the market rent for the renewal of the tenancy. He would already have paid his purchaser in title. That would be provided for in the Amendment. It would only be if the tenant had been reimbursed by someone other than the succeeding tenant.
I believe that the Amendment would fill a gap in the Clause, and would make it clear that, if a tenant who has carried out improvements then receives in some form reimbursement for them, the improvements will be taken into account in assessing the rent when the tenancy is renewed.

The Solicitor-General: The Amendment proposes to insert a new subsection in Section 34 of the 1954 Act, as amended by Clause 1, to ensure that improvements made by a tenant for which he has been reimbursed otherwise than by another tenant are not to be disregarded by the court when fixing the rent payable on renewal of the tenancy. I think that the Amendment is designed to strike at a situation in which a tenant may get a double benefit—reimbursement for his improvements and also a new rent which does not reflect the improvements.
Under Section 34 as amended by Clause 1, improvements carried out by a tenant otherwise than under a legal

obligation to the landlord are, in certain circumstances, disregarded when a new rent is fixed. Should a landlord reimburse his tenant for the improvements on the understanding that the rent would be increased to the appropriate rent for improved premises, that understanding or agreement would be of no avail when the tenancy came to be renewed since Section 34 requires the improvements to be disregarded. The Amendment, as I understand it, would enable these improvements to be taken into account in the new rent.
I feel bound to advise the House to resist the Amendment on two grounds. First, although this by itself would not be decisive, I think that it has very little practical application. It is true that we considered this matter in Committee and that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) brought forward some instances. But, apart from that, generally we have very little evidence—and there was no evidence to this effect before the Law Commission—that the disregard of improvements for which the tenant had been reimbursed has been criticised as operating unfairly to the landlord.
The second and more substantial objection to the Amendment is that it is too wide in its terms. First, I will deal with the limited practical application of what it proposes. Let us consider the matter first in relation to arrangements made after the Bill has become law. It seems to me that the Amendment does not serve a useful purpose in relation to future arrangements since, if the parties want a package deal comprising reimbursement to the tenant and higher rents to the landlord, a deal can be effectively implemented by the landlord carrying out and paying for the improvements. That would not itself be a case of improvements carried out by the tenant within the meaning of Section 34(2) and would thus not be disregarded in the new rent.
In relation to arrangements made in the period between 1954 and 1970, apart from the instances brought forward by the hon. Gentleman, there has been, we think, literally no evidence that the Amendment is really needed to assist landlords who, since 1954, have reimbursed tenants for improvements, knowing that the law did not entitle them to


a rent for the improved premises. A landlord would be ill-advised, one thinks, to act in that fashion and we believe that very few have done so.
7.45 p.m.
That leaves arrangements made before 1954. Under the Clause, tenants' improvements are only disregarded if made within the 21 years preceding the application for a new tenancy. At present, therefore, the Amendment seems only significant in relation to the five to six years of that 21-year period which precedes the 1954 Act. In five to six years' time, all improvements qualifying for disregard under Section 34 as amended will have been made in the lifetime of the 1954 Act. So, on that view of the matter, the House will appreciate that the Amendment, if what it proposes is an asset at all, is putting forward what can fairly be called a dwindling asset.
The Amendment is too wide, because reimbursement
…, otherwise than by another tenant of the property …
includes reimbursement by others besides the landlords. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, in drafting the Amendment, when they resorted to that language had in mind the case of improvement grant paid by local authorities. But it seems to us that the expression is too wide because its terms are wide enough to cover, for example, cases of mere gifts by third parties and such transactions as reimbursement by the company employing the tenant. If the landlord is not entitled to a higher rent where the tenant pays for his own improvements, he should not be entitled to it when a third party pays.
For this reason, I must recommend to the House that it should reject the Amendment. I recognise again the argument put by the hon. Gentleman. I do not like time and again advising the House to turn down his proposals. Very shortly, if all is well, we shall be reaching an Amendment where his name and mine are found together in a united disposition to change the law for the better, but in this instance I must advise rejection of his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

EXCLUSION OF PROVISIONS OF PART II OF ACT OF 1954 BY AUTHORISED AGREEMENT

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 4, leave out "and" and insert:
(b) on the joint application of the persons who are the landlord and the tenant in relation to a tenancy to which this part of this Act applies, authorise an agreement excluding in relation to that tenancy the provisions of sections 24 to 28 of this Act upon the terms specified in the instrument creating the tenancy as the terms which shall apply in the event of the court authorising such an agreement; or.
Clause 5 seeks to amend Clause 38 of the 1954 Act. Under the law, one cannot contract out of the landlord and Tenant Act, 1954—that is to say, one cannot enter into an agreement to exclude the right of a business tenant to require a renewal of his business lease at a market rent, except in certain cases set out in Section 30 of the 1954 Act. But, generally speaking, there is no contracting out of the Act.
Clause 5 gives a limited right to contract out. It is limited to the circumstances set out in paragraph (a), that is to say, where the persons entering into the lease, the prospective landlord and the prospective tenant, apply to the court for permission to contract out of the 1954 Act—that is before they enter into the lease—or, under paragraph (b), when they wish to enter into the surrender of the lease. But in practice this will raise some difficulty. The contracting-out provision can be brought into effect only by the parties applying to the court and by their making a joint application to the court. As anybody knows, an application to the court takes time and when the parties wish to contract out of the Act when entering into a lease, they will first have to apply to the court and await the court order to that effect. This will obviously delay their clinching the bargain and it will keep them in suspense as to whether the lease will be effected.
The purpose of the subsection of Amendment No. 3 is to provide for just that case, to enable the parties to enter into a binding lease before applying to the court.
This matter was partially discussed in Committee and at that time the Solicitor-General pointed out that if an application were made to the court after the parties had entered into the lease, the bargain between them might be substantially changed and either side might be at considerable risk. To overcome that, the Amendment allows the parties to enter into a binding lease with alternative conditions.
If the court refuses to allow them to agree to contract out of the Act, the tenant shall not have the right to renew at the end of the lease, one set of conditions will apply; if the court gives them the sanction to enter into an agreement excluding the tenant from his right to renewal at the end of the lease, another set of terms will apply. This will enable the parties to bind themselves by a lease when awaiting the result of an application to the court, but at the same time it will not throw them open, as it were, to a sort of gamble before the court that the lease may be substantially altered to the detriment of one party or the other.
Clause 5 is very useful. It has been found necessary to give a concession of this sort to allow the parties to contract out of the Act, but, by reason of making it necessary to go to the court, the Clause detracts from the concession.

The Solicitor-General: The Amendment would insert a new paragraph after paragraph (a) of the new subsection (4) of Section 38 of the 1954 Act. It would enable the court to authorise an agreement in an existing business tenancy to exclude the provisions of Part II of the 1954 Act. As has been said, it reproduces some of the substance of a group of Amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Committee, but it takes account—and I am grateful for this—of the argument I ventured to put forward in Committee when I said that such an agreement would often be of limited practical use as the parties would be reluctant to act on it for fear of being in breach of their obligations should the court refuse ratification.
The intention of the Amendment is to overcome the inevitable delay attending the grant of a new tenancy which must be the subject of an application to the

court and it seeks to achieve this by enabling the court to authorise for an existing tenancy an agreement excluding Part II of the 1954 Act, or on the terms of the tenancy expressed to be conditional on the court's authority.
I recognise again that the form of the Amendment very reasonably takes account of previous objections, but the outcome is that the mischief which it seeks to remedy becomes very much diminished. The Amendment would rarely serve a useful purpose. The main practical object of Clause 5 is to facilitate temporary lettings which landlords are not prepared to grant if protection of the 1954 Act applies to them. Landlords would rarely agree to terms excluding the 1954 Act if they knew that the terms were conditional upon the court's authority, unless the court's authority were invariably forthcoming.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think that there is force in that observation and that he will agree with me that the court's function under the Clause is not to act as a rubber stamp, but to satisfy itself that the parties have reached a genuine agreement for their mutual benefit and that they understand its effect. In so far as the Amendment might have the effect of inducing the courts to give anything like automatic approval to these agreements in order to avoid possible hardship, it would have an undesirable consequence.
I have tried to show that the hon. Member for Crosby has very reasonably sought to pare down these consequences until the objections, whose validity he has recognised, are overcome. But I fear that the outcome of the Amendment, perhaps inevitably in that situation, is to have an extremely limited effect and I must therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument forced and not very strong. There would be a joint application to the court. This would be a case in which the parties were agreed. If they had to go to the court before entering into the lease, they would yet go there agreed on the terms. They go to the court and say, "May we enter into an agreement to contract out of the 1954 Act on these terms?" That is the whole purpose of the Clause.
8.0 p.m.
We start from that basis, a basis of agreement, of the parties telling the court that they think they understand what they are doing, and want to do it, and asking to be allowed to contract out of the Act. It is not one party saying, "Let me out of my obligations under the Act." It is not a case of the landlord saying, "May I preclude the tenant from his benefits under the Act?" It is both of them going to the court, so one assumes that they go with an agreement in mind.
I have no doubt that when such applications are made a draft lease will be put before the court of the terms which the parties want to enter. It is a short step from that to say that if the parties bind themselves to alternative terms—one set if the court refuses permission and the other set if it grants that permission—one is not altering the principle embodied in the Clause but making it a little easier for the parties.
The Solicitor-General said that the Clause was intended to facilitate temporary lettings. It does not say so. It could apply to any length of letting. But temporary lettings, in their very nature, are those which the parties wish to enter into quickly. They will be for a short time, and I should think that they come about only when the parties wish to enter into them quickly. Therefore, if the Amendment were accepted it would be an added help to the parties and certainly no detriment to either. Neither would be in danger under such a provision.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

COMPENSATION WHERE NO APPLICATION TO COURT IS MADE

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 6, after 'other', insert 'valid'.
The Amendment is short and sweet. Like all the Clauses in this part of the Bill, the Clause seeks to amend the 1954 Act, and in this case it seeks to amend provisions relating to compensation when a landlord is entitled to refuse to renew a lease. Section 30 of the 1954 Act sets out seven grounds for refusing renewal of a lease. In the case of the three

mentioned in the Clause—those in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of Section 30(1)—compensation is payable by the landlord if the renewal of the lease is refused. Those paragraphs relate to cases in which there has been a sub-letting of part of the property, and it would be detrimental to the landlord to continue that sub-letting; where the landlord intends to reconstruct the property; or where he wishes to take it over himself. The compensation is payable only by order of the court, as the law stands.
No direct power is granted by the Act for the parties to come to an agreement on this and the landlord to pay out the amount of compensation which he is directed to pay by the Act. As I have already said this evening, that amount of compensation is a very controversial matter, but all we are dealing with here is whether the landlord can pay that money without an order of the court. Ordinary individuals can agree between themselves, and there is no difficulty. The difficulty arises where the landlord has limited powers, as for example, a trustee, or an incorporated body which might be acting ultra vires.
The Clause allows compensation to be be given without the need to go to the court for an order. But it sanctions that only where no grounds other than those I have mentioned—those in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of Section 30(1) of the 1954 Act—are specified in the landlord's notice objecting to the renewal. Let us suppose that, as so often happens, the landlord says, "I have a good ground on reconstruction. I want to reconstruct the premises, but I do not know whether I shall succeed on that. The tenant has not been very good anyway, so let us throw in a few more of the seven grounds in Section 30." So instead of just stating that he wants to pull the premises down and rebuild, he says that the tenant has broken a covenant. This may be just a make-weight in this case, but once he has put it in both parties lose the benefit of the Clause.
What I propose is that if there are other grounds in the landlord's notice refusing renewal than those relating to sub-letting, reconstruction, or the landlord's taking over the premises himself, they shall not exclude the benefits under the Clause if they are invalid grounds


Only if those other grounds stated in the notice are valid will the notice force the parties to go to the court.
The Clause is one of those useful Amendments to the 1954 Act. It could be made more useful if we did away with the formalities as much as we can. If, through an abundance of caution, the landlord has included some other terms in the notice, he has precluded himself from agreeing with the tenant to pay compensation without obtaining a court order. I do not think that he can even put things right by withdrawing the application. The latter part of the Clause says that the compensation can be paid if the application is not proceeded with or is withdrawn. But there is a condition that it must be an application based on the landlord's notice, in which no other grounds than paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) are stated.
I am convinced that my proposal will assist the proper working of the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: This Amendment alters the scope of Clause 11, which enables a tenant who is dispossessed on certain statutory grounds to obtain compensation either without making, or after withdrawing, an application to the court. The Amendment was foreshadowed in a debate which we had on this subject in Committee. Clause 11 enables compensation to be paid in these circumstances where the landlord has specified no other ground in his notice than a ground stated in paragraphs (e), (f) or (g) of Section 30(1) of the 1954 Act.
As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) rightly said, these grounds are, broadly, where the application for a new tenancy is made by a sub-tenant occupying part of the premises the landlord is in a position to let or sell the premises as a whole and ought to get possession of the part occupied by the sub-tenant since otherwise he will suffer substantial loss; or requires possession so as to demolish or reconstruct the premises; or intends to occupy the premises himself for business or residential purposes.
The Amendment requires compensation to be paid in those circumstances where the landlord has specified no other valid ground. In other words, if the landlord includes in his notice a ground

other than those in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) which he cannot justify, the Amendment would enable the tenant to obtain compensation without an application to the court.
I regard the intention of the Amendment as laudable, because it seems to me to prevent the landlord from forcing the tenant into court by the device of including in his notice a ground which he cannot sustain. But the difficulty arises because of this circumstance, that the question whether a ground is valid must of its nature be for the court to determine, and if the landlord included an invalid ground in his notice the only way ultimately in which its validity could be tested would be by an application to the court, which is the very step which the Clause is designed to avoid.
As I said earlier, the Clause, in its present form, is designed to enable the landlord and the tenant to behave reasonably. If one of them does not behave reasonably, the outcome of this language is that they must go to court, and on that hypothesis the outcome is an appropriate one. Landlords who use the device of specifying an invalid ground would be vulnerable to the costs sanction on any application to the court.
For the reasons which I have given, I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16

LAND CHARGES REGISTERED IN YORKSHIRE DEEDS REGISTRY

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 10, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 22.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can take at the same time, the following seven Amendments, Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and Amendment No. 23 in Schedule 1, page 24, column 3, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert 'Section 10(6)'.

The Solicitor-General: This group of Amendments improves the position of mortgagees who are liable to suffer loss as a result of a closure of a Yorkshire deeds registry under Part II of the Bill.


When a registry is closed, puisne mortgages will need to be reregistered as land charges if their priority is to be preserved; and the Bill provides that any mortgagee who re-registers within two years of the first closure of a registry but nevertheless suffers some loss is to be compensated under Clause 20.
The Amendment further improves the position of mortgages, first, by validating certain land charges registrations which have previously been ineffective; secondly, by allowing mortgages registered only in the deeds registers to be re-registered as land charges from commencement of the Bill and not only from the date on which the registry begins to close; and, thirdly, by adjusting the indemnity provisions of Clause 20 so as to cover any losses resulting from these new provisions. The first change is effected by Amendment No. 8, the second by Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 23, and the third by Amendments Nos. 9 to 12.
Amendment No. 8 validates registrations of puisne mortgages in the Land Charges Register which had previously been invalid because they were made in the wrong sequence. By a curiosity of the law, if a puisne mortgage is once registered in a deeds register it cannot thereafter be validly re-registered as a land charge. Nevertheless, such re-registrations are not uncommon. On commencement of the Bill, these ineffective registrations will become valid so that the mortgages need not be re-registered as land charges.
8.15 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 23 provide that puisne mortgages registered in the deeds registers can be re-registered as land charges from the commencement of the Bill. Clause 16(1) (b) makes puisne mortgages registered in the deeds registers re-registrable as land charges on and after the date on which the deeds registry begins to close under the provisions of Clause 15. There is no reason to defer the right to re-register until that date, and accordingly the first two Amendments provide that re-registration can take place from the commencement of the Bill. The third and fourth Amendments are purely consequential.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 make Amendments to Clause 20 which are

consequential on the Amendments to Clause 16. The validation of ineffective land charge registrations and the right to reregister from the commencement of the Bill rather than from the date of closure of a deeds registry will be of general benefit to mortgagees, but may also give rise to losses which would not occur under the Bill in its present form.
For example, loss could conceivably occur where a mortgage, ineffectively registered as a land charge before the commencement of the Bill, obtains by validation of that registration a priority over a prior mortgage which was registered in the deeds register alone and must as a result of the Bill be re-registered as a land charge. The first Amendment, No. 9, ensures that losses of this kind qualify for indemnity under the provisions of Clause 20.

Mr. Graham Page: It is perfectly clear what is to happen to puisne mortgages in future. After the Bill takes effect, one will still be able to register a puisne mortgage in the Yorkshire deeds registry while it exists, but so that one does not forget, when the registry dies, to reregister in the names registry—the registry which we know as Kidbrooke—one will register in both in future. We register at the Yorkshire deeds registry and we register as a land charge. This is simplifying conveyancing, of course! This is one of the Government's great efforts to simplify the transfer of property. However, we hope that it will simplify itself eventually when the Yorkshire deeds registry comes to an end.
I am worried about registrations of the past. Under Clause 16(2) all the registers of the Yorkshire deeds registry will be carted up to the Land Charges Registry and deposited there. I should have thought from that that those who had the benefit of the land charge, such as a puisne mortgage, would not have had to do anything more. The register will have gone to the Land Charges Registry. If anyone searches there, will not the officials look at the old Yorkshire deeds registry as well as at the ordinary registers? Otherwise, what is the purpose of Clause 16(2)?
Apparently, from what the Solicitor General says, it does not have any effect on puisne mortgages because he said that those which were entered into in the


past must be re-registered by those who have the benefit of them now. I suppose that there is no automatic registration of existing puisne mortgages and that those who have the benefit of them must, to keep that benefit, re-register when the Yorkshire deeds registry is abolished.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 6, in page 11, line 8, at end insert:
(4A) A puisne mortgage registered in the deeds register maintained at a Yorkshire deeds registry shall be registrable under the Land Charges Act 1925 to the same extent as a puisne mortgage not registered in any local deeds register, and accordingly in section 10(1) of that Act, in Class C(i), the words 'and (where the whole of the land affected is within the jurisdiction of a local deeds registry) not being registered in the local deeds register' are hereby repealed.

No. 7, in page 11, line 12, leave out '(1)(b)' and insert '(4A)'.

No. 8, in page 11, line 12, at end insert:
(6) Where before the commencement of this Act a person has purported to register under the Land Charges Act 1925 a mortgage which was incapable of such registration because already registered in the deeds register maintained at a Yorkshire deeds registry, the purported registration shall be treated as valid notwithstanding the prior registration in the deeds register.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 20

INDEMNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO SUFFER LOSS

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 12, line 27, leave out '(b) or (c)' and insert '(c), (4A) or (6)'.

No. 10, in page 12, line 36, leave out '(1)(b)' and insert '(4A)'.

No. 11, in page 12, line 37, leave out during the 'and insert before the expiration of'.

No. 12, in page 12, line 38, leave out from 'date' to 'and' in line 39 and insert 'which under section 15(3) of this Act is the relevant date in relation to the Yorkshire deeds registry in question'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 13, line 1, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This is the Amendment to which both the hon. and learned Gentleman and I

have put our names. Under Clause 20, there is provision for indemnity to anyone who suffers loss in certain circumstances as a result of the abolition of the Yorkshire Deeds Registry.
Indemnity would be no real indemnity if it did not include any costs and expenses of the sufferer. Under subsection (4), it was only a discretionary matter of awarding compensation for those costs and expenses. The indemnity did not necessarily stretch to that sort of compensation because subsection (4) said that the indemnity "may" include a reasonable sum in respect of any costs or expenses properly incurred by the applicant. The Amendment, substituting "shall" for "may", would make it mandatory that the indemnity should include indemnity for those costs and expenses as I am sure that the House would agree it should.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24

COMPENSATION IN CERTAIN CASES FOR LOSS DUE TO UNDISCLOSED LAND CHARGES

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 15, line 13, leave out from and ' to end of line 21 and insert:
'where the purchaser of the estate or interest in question has incurred expenditure for the purpose—
(a) of securing that the estate or interest is no longer affected by the registered land charge or is so affected to a less extent; or
(b) of obtaining compensation under this section;
the amount of the compensation shall include the amount of the expenditure (so far as it would not otherwise fall to be treated as compensation for loss) reasonably incurred by the purchaser for that purpose'.
This is a purely drafting Amendment which meets a point raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. It is designed to emphasise that an award of compensation under the Clause must include both any expenditure incurred in seeking to relieve the land of land charge—for example, the costs of an application to the Lands Tribunal for the discharge of a restrictive covenant—and any expenditure incurred in applying to the Chief Land Registrar for compensation.
The Amendment alters the structure but not the substance of subsection (4), which at present provides that compensation is to include the purchaser's expenditure of securing that the interest is no longer affected by the charge or of obtaining compensation under the Clause. As altered by the Amendment, the subsection will provide that where the purchaser has reasonably incurred expenditure for the purpose of securing that his interest was unaffected by the charge or of obtaining compensation under the Clause, the compensation is to include the amount of that expenditure.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise only in the hope that this harmony between the two sides will extend to further Amendments in my name on the Notice Paper. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment, which improves the drafting of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 16, line 24, after 'completion', insert:
'means the date on which the relevant estate or interest in land vests in the purchaser and'.
One has to refer back to the beginning of the Clause to understand the purpose of the Amendment. Subsection (1) provides that compensation is payable in the case of loss due to undisclosed land charges if the date of completion of a purchase was after the commencement of this Act.
"Date of completion" is a phrase which is variously used in practice and therefore requires some definition here to show what is meant by it in the Bill. Sometimes it means the date fixed in the contract for purchase as the date for completion. At other times it means the date when the conveyance of the property is completed. To remove any doubt, I seek to insert these words in the definition of "date of completion".
As it stands, the definition of the phrase in subsection (10) relates only to the case of an acquisition by the Land Commission under a general vesting declaration, which is a very special type of occasion, and it does not relate to the normal practice of the transfer of land. I want to define clearly what is meant by "date of completion", and I hope that I have done so in my Amendment.
It is not one which will be effective in law for any great length of time. We are dealing with a transitional period of a contract before the Act and a conveyance after the Act. It is a small point, but one which should be cleared up while we have the Bill before us.

The Solicitor-General: The Amendment seeks to amplify the definition of the expression "date of completion" in Clause 24. The existing definition in subsection (10) applies only to certain statutory vesting declarations. The Amendment would extend the definition so as to cover the ordinary conveyancing transaction in which a contract is completed by a conveyance. It defines the date of completion as
… the date on which the relevant estate or interest in land vests in the purchaser …
The hon. Gentleman foreshadowed this Amendment in our consideration of the Bill in Committee. We feel that what he proposes adds an unnecessary refinement to the Bill. He has acknowledged that this is a transitional matter and that a very small number of cases will be affected. On balance, we think that it is better to leave the language of the Bill in its present form. The date of completion is referred to in the Clause only for transitional purposes, and the number of cases involved will be minute.
8.30 p.m.
In the context of the Clause we take the view that it is reasonably clear that "date of completion" means the date on which completion took place, a meaning which is entirely consistent with the existing definition in subsection (10). The definition in the Bill does nothing to derogate from the generally recognised meaning of the term. My advice to the House is to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I protest at the argument which the Solicitor-General has put forward, not only against this Amendment but an earlier one, namely, that only a small number of cases may be affected. That may be so, but one or two of those cases may be very big involving large sums of money. In Committee I said that it was not very sound to use the argument that the child was only a very small one against an Amendment of this sort. If there are only a small number of cases involved, we should provide for them. In those few


cases there is no harm in a few extra printed words in the Bill. I would have hoped that in this case, merely to remove ambiguity, without damaging the interpretation, construction or application of the Bill when it becomes an Act, this Amendment could have been accepted.

The Solicitor-General: I recognise the argument that the hon. Member has put forward, but it seems that the issue is to balance the desirability of dealing with a comparatively small number of cases on the one hand with the disadvantage of elaboration of language in that Bill on the other. I do not under-estimate the importance of this, but in considering the matter in that light the Government have come to the conclusion I have indicated.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 25

REGISTRATION OF LAND CHARGES CREATED BY COMPANIES

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 17, line 29, leave out from 'before' to 'or' in line 30 and insert '1st January 1970'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment it will be convenient if we discuss Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

The Solicitor-General: These Amendments are consequential on Clause 30(2) which, as a result of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in Committee, brings the Bill into force, except for Clause 27(6), on 1st January, 1970. The Amendments substitute reference to a specific date for reference to the commencement of this Act. The first Amendment affects Clause 25 which deals with the registration of land charges created by companies, which itself amends Section 10(5) of the Land Charges Act, 1925. The reference in the amended Section 10(5) to charges created before the commencement of the Law of Property Act, 1969 is altered to a reference to charges created before 1st January, 1970, the actual commencement date.
The second and third Amendments affect Clause 26, dealing with land improvement charges, which adds new

Section 11A to the Land Charges Act, 1925. The second Amendment alters the reference to charges registered after the commencement of the Law of Property Act, 1969 to a reference to charges registered after 31st December, 1969. The third Amendment alters the reference to charges registered before the commencement of the Act to a reference to charges registered before 1st January, 1970.

Mr. Graham Page: We are back in harmony, even unison. We are grateful to the Solicitor-General not only for accepting our Amendment about 1st January, 1970, in Committee, but for making these consequential Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26

LAND IMPROVEMENT CHARGES

Amendments made: No. 17 in page 17, line 37, leave out from 'after' to '1969' in line 38 and insert '31st December'.

No. 18 in page 17, line 40, leave out the 'commencement of that Act' and insert 1st January 1970'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 27

POWERS OF LANDS TRIBUNAL AND COURT IN RELATION TO RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AFFECTING LAND

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 18, line 40, leave out 'public interest' and insert:
'declared objectives of the relevant local planning authority in respect of the future preservation, development or user of the land'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendment No. 20, in page 19, leave out lines 1 to 9.
Amendment No. 24, in page 25, line 17 [Schedule 2], leave out public interest ' and insert:
'declared objectives of the relevant local planning authority in respect of the future preservation, development or user of the land'.
and Amendment No. 25, in page 25, leave out lines 21 to 28.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There is an air of unreality about this debate. We all


know that at this stage of the Session the Government will not give an inch because they cannot. We are therefore moving through these Amendments with some speed, merely to make a protest against the attitude of the Government, which is that on no major matter will they give way at all.
Clause 27 is a very deep incision into private rights. I will not elaborate for the benefit of the large House which is listening the old law in Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, by which restrictive covenants, if they ceased to be of any value to the person or the land on whose behalf they were originally taken, could be lifted by the Lands Tribunal. That was much too difficult. We all know that. The Land Commission rightly recommended that instead of it being necessary to prove no benefit it should be, broadly speaking, "no substantial benefit". We have all agreed with that, both in another place and here.
But then the Lord Chancellor, in his reforming wisdom, said that one could prove something else. Even if there were substantial benefit to those enjoying the restrictive covenant by which the land was protected from development on its boundaries or from some noxious industry or something such as that, if the would-be developer could prove that the restriction was contrary to the public interest that was enough for the Lands Tribunal to lift it if it were so minded.
The phrase "public interest" is vague and non-justiciable. Everybody has a different idea of what is the public interest. Its very vagueness is a threat hanging over anybody who has the enjoyment of a restrictive covenant. We think that it is unfair, unjust, uneconomic and undesirable that this vague threat should hang over the heads of those who want a little peace and quiet in their old age, among others, and in Committee we therefore tried to excise altogether this alternative ground.
The Government did not give an inch on that point. Today, we have suggested a compromise—that there should be an alternative ground, not this vague phrase "public interest" but the
declared objectives of the relevant local planning authority in respect of the future preservation, development or user of the land.

That gives the Government a lot. It puts the public interest into the forefront of the battle but it has the advantage of deferring it. It makes it possible for those advising landowners and would-be purchasers, and others who might have to go to the Lands Tribunal, about what is meant by the second alternative.
One could say that the man who wants to develop one's backyard or the backyard next door will not be able to do it against one's wishes and in conflict with one's valuable interest unless such development is consonant with the
declared objectives of the relevant local planning authority in respect of the future preservation, development or user of the land".
That is some limitation at least on the very vague and dangerous phrase "public interest", in the name of which so many crimes in our country have been committed.
For that reason, and because I have very little optimism about the outcome of the Amendment, I move it briefly, but the brevity of my speech must not be taken to mean that we do not feel deeply and sincerely on the subject. We regard this provision as a blot on what is otherwise a good Bill.

The Solicitor-General: The Amendment does not deal with the matter by setting out the subject of the declared objectives of the relevant local planning authority as illustrative of public interest or as an element in public interest which Parliament regards it as peculiarly desirable to consider. It displaces public interest by the different concept of the declared objectives of local planning authorities.
That means that the Amendment would reduce the scope of the new powers given by the Bill to the Lands Tribunal for the purposes of discharging or modifying restrictive covenants. It would achieve this by preventing the Tribunal from discharging or modifying a covenant on the ground that it is contrary to the public interest and enabling it instead to discharge or modify on the ground that the covenant is contrary to the declared objectives of the authority, as spelled out in the Amendment.
The new subsection (1)(a) of Clause 84 provides that where it is shown that


reasonable use of the land would be impeded by a restriction, the Lands Tribunal may discharge or modify the restriction if, first, it is not of substantial value or advantage to the persons entitled to its benefit, or, secondly, if it is contrary to the public interest and if money would be adequate compensation for the loss or disadvantage resulting from the discharge or modification.
The new subsection (1)(b) lists the factors which the Lands Tribunal must take into account in determining whether a case falls within subsection (1)(a) and whether a restriction should be discharged or modified. These factors or guidelines are the development plan and any declared or ascertainable pattern for the grant or refusal of planning provision in the relevant areas as well as the period at which, and the context in which, the restriction was created or imposed and any other material circumstances.
The first and third Amendments would substitute declared planning objectives for public interest. The second and fourth Amendments would delete the new subsection (1)(b) and thus remove the guidelines. In our view, these Opposition proposals should be rejected on the ground that they would unreasonably tie the hands of the Lands Tribunal and prevent the consideration of restrictions in a wider and more balanced context than that of planning policy alone. Planning policy is but one of the considerations relevant to the public interest and is specifically referred to in the new subsection (1)(b) as a matter which the Tribunal is to take into account.
The effect of the Amendment would be to convert the Lands Tribunal into a veritable rubber stamp when confronted with evidence that a restriction was contrary to declared planning objectives and the Tribunal would not be able to discharge a restriction which was in conflict with the public interest but not contrary to declared planning policy, a situation which, I should have thought, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) would recognise as one quite likely to occur and which I particularly had in mind when I made my introductory observations about the Amendment in pointing out the form it took.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would the Solicitor-General give an example of a restriction which, though valuable from the point of view of the public interest, was not in conformity with the declared objectives of a planning authority?

The Solicitor-General: I will resist the hon. and learned Member's invitation to give examples, though I am touched by the confidence he reveals that such an event could never occur.
It is thought that the new subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) strike the right balance by requiring the Tribunal to have regard to planning considerations. But at the same time neither treating those considerations as conclusive nor as exclusive of other public interest factors. I feel that we are taking a realistic and sensible view on the matter.
The argument that the Lands Tribunal's power to discharge a restriction on the ground that it is contrary to the public interest is too wide can be countered to some extent by pointing to the fact that the power is, first, a power and not an obligation and, secondly, that it is exercisable only where the restriction impedes some reasonable user of land and only where money would be adequate compensation for its removal. These limitations on the removal of restrictions by the Tribunal, allied to the specific guidance in subsection (1)(b) in considering planning factors, should, we think, give the Tribunal the right balance of flexibility and restraint in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
My recommendation to the House, therefore, is to reject this Amendment, and with that advice I venture to combine an expression of hope that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen will not suffer too much discomfort from reflection upon the dichotomy between public interest and planning decisions.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I have reflected during the course of the learned Solicitor-General's speech, and I am still rather puzzled as to what the Government have in mind in regard to this dichotomy. We have seen one horn of the dichotomy—if a dichotomy has a horn, namely, planning considerations. What is the other horn of this beast? No examples are given. It is a most terrible threat to every householder and land owner, and


every person who has a restriction covenant and who hopes to have a little peace and comfort in his retirement. It is a horn which has not been disclosed. All we know is that it is something different from planning authorities, and it is something which should be disclosed.
I hope that, even now, the learned Solicitor-General, having had a moment or two in which to reflect, can give us one example—only one—of something that is not a planning consideration but would nevertheless be in the public interest for a valuable restrictive covenant to be lifted.

Amendment negatived.

New Schedule

CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF ACT OF 1954 SET OUT AS AMENDED

24.—(1) A tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies shall not come to an end unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act; and, subject to the provisions of section 29 of this Act, the tenant under such a tenancy may apply to the court for a new tenancy—
(a) if the landlord has given notice under section 25 of this Act to terminate the tenancy, or
(b) if the tenant has made a request for a new tenancy in accordance with section 26 of this Act.

(2) The last foregoing subsection shall not prevent the coming to an end of a tenancy by notice to quit given by the tenant, by surrender or forfeiture, or by the forfeiture of a superior tenancy, unless—
(a) in the case of a notice to quit, the notice was given before the tenant had been in occupation in right of the tenancy for one month; or
(b) in the case of an instrument of surrender, the instrument was executed before, or was executed in pursuance of an agreement made before, the tenant had been in occupation in right of the tenancy for one month.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section,—
(a) where a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies ceases to be such a tenancy, it shall not come to an end by reason only of the cesser, but if it was granted for a term of years certain and has been continued by subsection (1) of this section then (without prejudice to the termination thereof in accordance with any terms of the tenancy) it may be terminated by not less than three nor more than six months' notice in writing given by the landlord to the tenant;

(b) where, at a time when a tenancy is not one to which this Part of this Act applies, the landlord gives notice to quit, the operation of the notice shall not be affected by reason that the tenancy becomes one to which this Part of this Act applies after the giving of the notice.

27.—(1) Where the tenant under a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies, being a tenancy granted for a term of years certain, gives to the immediate landlord, not later than three months before the date on which apart from this Act the tenancy would come to an end by effluxion of time, a notice in writing that the tenant does not desire the tenancy to be continued, section 24 of this Act shall not have effect in relation to the tenancy, unless the notice is given before the tenant has been in occupation in right of the tenancy for one month.

(2) A tenancy granted for a term of years certain which is continuing by virtue of section 24 of this Act may he brought to an end on any quarter day by not less than three months' notice in writing given by the tenant to the immediate landlord, whether the notice is given after the date on which apart from this Act the tenancy would have come to an end or before that date, but not before the tenant has been in occupation in right of the tenancy for one month.

30.—(1) The grounds on which a landlord may oppose an application under subsection (1) of section 24 of this Act are such of the following grounds as may be stated in the landlord's notice under section 25 of this Act, or, as the case may be, under subsection (6) of section 26 thereof, that is to say:—
(a) where under the et current tenancy the tenant has any obligations as respects the repair and maintenance of the holding, that the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy in view of the state of repair of the holding, being a state resulting from the tenant's failure to comply with the said obligations;
(b) that the tenant ought, not to be granted a new tenancy in view of his persistent delay in paying rent which has become due;
(c) that the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy in view of other substantial breaches by him of his obligations under the current tenancy, or for any other reason connected with the tenant's use or management of the holding;
(d) that the landlord has offered and is willing to provide or secure the provision of alternative accommodation for the tenant, that the terms on which the alternative accommodation is available are reasonable having regard to the terms of the current tenancy and to all other relevant circumstances, and that the accommodation and the time at which it will be available are suitable for the tenant's requirements (including the requirement to preserve goodwill) having regard to the nature and class of his business and to the situation and extent of, and facilities afforded by, the holding;
(e) where the current tenancy was created by the sub-letting of part only of the


property comprised in a superior tenancy and the landlord is the owner of an interest in reversion expectant on the termination of that superior tenancy, the aggregate of the rents reasonably obtainable on separate lettings of the holding and the remainder of that property would be substantially less than the rent reasonably obtainable on a letting of that property as a whole, that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord requires possession of the holding for the purpose of letting or otherwise disposing of the said property as a whole, and that in view thereof the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy;
(f) that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work of construction on the holding or part thereof and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding;
(g) subject as hereinafter provided, that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him therein, or as his residence.

(2) The landlord shall not be entitled to oppose an application on the ground specified in paragraph (g) of the last foregoing subsection if the interest of the landlord, or an interest which has merged in that interest and but for the merger would be the interest of the landlord, was purchased or created after the beginning of the period of five years which ends with the termination of the current tenancy, and at all times since the purchase or creation thereof the holding has been comprised in a tenancy or successive tenancies of the description specified in subsection (1) of section 23 of this Act.

(3) Where the landlord has a controlling interest in a company any business to be carried on by the company shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(g) of this section as a business to be carried on by him.

For the purposes of this subsection, a person has a controlling interest in a company if and only if either—
(a) he is a member of it and able, without the consent of any other person, to appoint or remove the holders of at least a majority of the directorships; or
(b) he holds more than one-half of its equity share capital, there being disregarded any shares held by him in a fiduciary capacity or as nominee for another person;
and in this subsection 'company' and 'share' have the meanings assigned to them by section 455(1) of the Companies Act 1948 and ' equity share capital ' the meaning assigned to it by section 154(5) of that Act.

32.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, an order under section 29 of this Act for the grant of a new tenancy shall be an order for the grant of a new tenancy of the holding; and in the absence of agreement between the landlord and the tenant as to the

property which constitutes the holding the court shall in the order designate that property by reference to the circumstances existing at the date of the order.

(1A) Where the court, by virtue of paragraph (b) of section 31A(1) of this Act, makes an order under section 29 of this Act for the grant of a new tenancy in a case where the tenant is willing to accept a tenancy of part of the holding, the order shall be an order for the grant of a new tenancy of that part only.

(2) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where the property comprised in the current tenancy includes other property besides the holding and the landlord requires any new tenancy ordered to be granted under section 29 of this Act to be a tenancy of the whole of the property comprised in the current tenancy; but in any such case—
(a) any order under the said section 29 for the grant of a new tenancy shall be an order for the grant of a new tenancy of the whole of the property comprised in the current tenancy, and
(b) references in the following provisions of this Part of this Act to the holding shall be construed as references to the whole of that property.

(3) Where the current tenancy includes rights enjoyed by the tenant in connection with the holding, those rights shall be included in a tenancy ordered to be granted under section 29 of this Act, except as otherwise agreed between the landlord and the tenant or, in default of such agreement, determined by the court.

34.—(1) The rent payable under a tenancy granted by order of the court under this Part of this Act shall be such as may be agreed between the landlord and the tenant or as, in default of such agreement, may be determined by the court to be that at which, having regard to the terms of the tenancy (other than those relating to rent), the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing lessor, there being disregarded—
(a) any effect on rent of the fact that the tenant has or his predecessors in title have been in occupation of the holding,
(b) any goodwill attached to the holding by reason of the carrying on thereat of the business of the tenant (whether by him or by a predecessor of his in that business),
(c) any effect on rent of an improvement to which this paragraph applies,
(d) in the case of a holding comprising licensed premises, any addition to its value attributable to the licence, if it appears to the court that having regard to the terms of the current tenancy and any other relevant circumstances the benefit of the licence belongs to the tenant.

(2) Paragraph (c) of the foregoing subsection applies to any improvement carried out by a person who at the time it was carried out was the tenant, but only if it was carried out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to his immediate landlord and either it was carried


out during the current tenancy or the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say,—
(a) that it was completed not more than twenty-one years before the application for the new tenancy was made; and
(b) that the holding or any part of it affected by the improvement has at all times since the completion of the improvement been comprised in tenancies of the description specified in section 23(1) of this Act; and
(c) that at the termination of each of those tenancies the tenant did not quit.

(3) Where the rent is determined by the court the court may, if it thinks fit, further determine that the terms of the tenancy shall include such provision for varying the rent as may be specified in the determination.

37.—(1) Where on the making of an application under section 24 of this Act the court is precluded (whether by subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 31 of this Act) from making an order for the grant of a new tenancy by reason of any of the grounds specified in paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of subsection (1) of section 30 of this Act and not of any grounds specified in any other paragraph of that subsection, or where no other ground is specified in the landlord's notice under section 25 of this Act or, as the case may be, under section 26(6) thereof, than those specified in the said paragraphs (e) (f) and (g) and either no application under the said section 24 is made or such an application is withdrawn, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, the tenant shall be entitled on quitting the holding to recover from the landlord by way of compensation an amount determined in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) The said amount shall be as follows, that is to say,—
(a) where the conditions specified in the next following subsection are satisfied it shall be twice the rateable value of the holding,
(b) in any other case it shall be the rateable value of the holding.

(3) The said conditions are—
(a) that, during the whole of the fourteen years immediately preceding the termination of the current tenancy, premises being comprised in the holding have been occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the occupier or for those and other purposes;
(b) that, if during those fourteen years there was a change in the occupier of the premises, the person who was the occupier immediately after the change was the successor to the business carried on by the person who was the occupier immediately before the change.

(4) Where the court is precluded from making an order for the grant of a new tenancy under this Part of this Act in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, the court shall on the application of the tenant certify that fact.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section the rateable value of the holding shall be determined as follows:—

(a) where in the valuation list in force at the date on which the landlord's notice under section 24 or, as the case may be, subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act is given a value is then shown as the annual value (as hereinafter defined) of the holding, the rateable value of the holding shall be taken to be that value;
(b) where no such value is so shown with respect to the holding but such a value or such values is or are so shown with respect to premises comprised in or comprising the holding or part of it, the rateable value of the holding shall be taker to be such value as is found by a proper apportionment or aggregation of the value or values so shown;
(c) where the rateable value of the holding cannot be ascertained in accordance with the foregoing paragraphs of this subsection, it shall be taken to be the value which, apart from any exemption from assessment to rates, would on a proper assessment be the value to be entered in the said valuation list as the annual value of the holding;
and any dispute arising, whether in proceedings before the court or otherwise, as to the determination for those purposes of the rateable value of the holding shall be referred to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for decision by a valuation officer.
An appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal from any decision of a valuation officer under this subsection, but subject thereto any such decision shall be final.

(6) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may be statutory instrument makes rules prescribing the procedure in connection with references under this section.

(7) In this section—
the reference to the termination of the current tenancy is a reference to the date of termination specified in the landlord's notice under section 25 of this Act or, as the case may be, the date specified in the tenant's request for a new tenancy as the date from which the new tenancy is to begin;
the expression "annual value" means rateable value except that where the rateable value differs from the net annual value the said expression means net annual value;
the expression "valuation officer" means any officer of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the time being authorised by a certificate of the Commissioners to act in relation to a valuation list.

38.—(1) Any agreement relating to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not) shall be void (except as provided by subsection (4) of this section) in so far as it purports to preclude the tenant from making an application or request under this Part of this Act or provides for the termination or the surrender of the tenancy in the event of his making such an application or request or for the imposition of any penalty, or disability on the tenant in that event.

(2) Where—
(a) during the whole of the five years immediately preceding the date on which the tenant under a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies is to quit the holding, premises being or comprised in the holding have been occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the occupier or for those and other purposes. and
(b) if during those five years there was a change in the occupier of the premises, the person who was the occupier immediately after the change was the successor to the business carried on by the person who was the occupier immediately before the change,
any agreement (whether contained in the instrument creating the tenancy or not and whether made before or after the termination of that tenancy) which purports to exclude or reduce compensation under the last foregoing section shall to that extent be void, so however that this subsection shall not affect any agreement as to the amount of any such compensation which is made after the right to compensation has accrued.

(3) In a case not falling within the last foregoing subsection the right to compensation conferred by the last foregoing section may be excluded or modified by agreement.

(4) The court may—
(a) on the joint application of the persons who will be the landlord and the tenant in relation to a tenancy to be granted for a term of years certain which will be a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies, authorise an agreement excluding in relation to that tenancy the provisions of sections 24 to 28 of this Act; and
(b) on the joint application of the persons who are the landlord and the tenant in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies, authorise an agreement for the surrender of the tenancy on such date or in such circumstances as may be specified in the agreement and on such terms (if any) as may be so specified;
if the agreement is contained in or endorsed on the instrument creating the tenancy or such other instrument as the court may specify; and an agreement contained in or endorsed on an instrument in pursuance of an authorisation given under this subsection shall be valid notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this section.

42.—(1) For the purposes of this section two bodies corporate shall be taken to be members of a group if and only if one is a subsidiary of the other or both are subsidiaries of a third body corporate.

In this subsection "subsidiary" has the same meaning as is assigned to it for the purposes of the Companies Act 1948 by section 154 of that Act.

(2) Where a tenancy is held by a member of a group, occupation by another member of the group and the carrying on of a business by another member of the group, shall be treated for the purposes of section 23 of this Act as equivalent to occupation or the carrying on of a business by the member of the group holding

the tenancy; and in relation to a tenancy to which this Part of this Act applies by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection—
(a) references (however expressed) in this Part of this Act and in the Ninth Schedule to this Act to the business of or to use occupation or enjoyment by the tenant shall be construed as including references to the business of or to use occupation or enjoyment by the said other member;
(b) the reference in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section 34 of this Act to the tenant shall be construed as including the said other member; and
(c) an assignment of the tenancy from one member of the group to another shall not be treated as a change in the person of the tenant.

(3) Where the landlord's interest is held by a member of a group—
(a) the reference in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section 30 of this Act to intended occupation by the landlord for the purposes of a business to be carried on by him shall be construed as including intended occupation by any member of the group for the purposes of a business to be carried on by that member; and
(b) the reference in subsection (2) of that section to the purchase or creation of any interest shall be construed as a reference to a purchase from or creation by a person other than a member of the group.

43.—

(3) This Part of this Act does not apply to a tenancy granted for a term certain not exceeding six months unless—
(a) the tenancy contains provision for renewing the term or for extending it beyond six months from its beginning; or
(b) the tenant has been in occupation for a period which, together with any period during which any predecessor in the carrying on of the business carried on by the tenant was in occupation, exceeds twelve months.

44.—(1) Subject to the next following subsection, in this Part of this Act the expression "the landlord", in relation to a tenancy (in this section referred to as "the relevant tenancy"). means the person (whether or not he is the immediate landlord) who is the owner of that interest in the property comprised in the relevant tenancy which for the time being fulfils the following conditions, that is to say—
(a) that it is an interest in reversion expectant (whether immediately or not) on the termination of the relevant tenancy, and
(b) that it is either the fee simple or a tenancy which will not come to an end within fourteen months by effluxion of time and, if it is such a tenancy, that no notice has been given by virtue of which it will come to an end within fourteen months or any further time by which it may be continued under section 36(2) or section 64 of this Act,
and is not itself in reversion expectant (whether immediately or not) on an interest which fulfils those conditions.

(2) References in this Part of this Act to a notice to quit given by the landlord are references to a notice to quit given by the immediate landlord.

(3) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall have effect for the application of this Part of this Act to cases where the immediate landlord of the tenant is not the owner of the fee simple in respect of the holding.

SIXTH SCHEDULE

PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSES OF PART II WHERE IMMEDIATE LANDLORD IS NOT THE FREEHOLDER

Definitions

1. In this Schedule the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them in relation to a tenancy (in this Schedule referred to as "the relevant tenancy"), that is to say:—
the competent landlord "means the person who in relation to the tenancy is for the time being the landlord (as defined by section 44 of this Act) for the purposes of Part II of this Act;
mesne landlord" means a tenant whose interest is intermediate between the relevant tenancy and the interest of the competent landlord; and
superior landlord" means a person (whether the owner of the fee simple or a tenant) whose interest is superior to the interest of the competent landlord.

Power of court to order reversionary tenancies

2. Where the period for which in accordance with the provisions of Part II of this Act it is agreed or determined by the court that a new tenancy should he granted thereunder will extend beyond the date on which the interest of the immediate landlord will come to an end, the power of the court under Part II of this Act to order such a grant shall include power to order the grant of a new tenancy until the expiration of that interest and also to order the grant of such a reversionary tenancy or reversionary tenancies as may be required to secure that the combined effects of those grants will be equivalent to the grant of a tenancy for that period; and the provisions of Part II of this Act shall, subject to the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the grant of a tenancy together with one or more reversionary tenancies as they apply in relation to the grant of one new tenancy.

Acts of competent landlord binding on other landlords

3.—(1) Any notice given by the competent landlord under Part II of this Act to terminate the relevant tenancy, and any agreement made between that landlord and the tenant as to the granting, duration, or terms of a future tenancy, being an agreement made for the purposes of the said Part II, shall bind the interest of any mesne landlord notwithstanding that he has not consented to the giving of the notice or was not a party to the agreement.

(2) The competent landlord shall have power for the purposes of Part II of this Act to give effect to any agreement with the tenant for the grant of a new tenancy beginning with the coming to an end of the relevant tenancy, notwithstanding that the competent landlord will not be the immediate landlord at the commencement of the new tenancy, and any instrument made in the exercise of the power conferred by this sub-paragraph shall have effect as if the mesne landlord had been a party thereto.

(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall prejudice the provisions of the next following paragraph.

Provisions as to consent of mesne landlord to acts of competent landlord

4.—(1) If the competent landlord, not being the immediate landlord, gives any such notice or makes any such agreement as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of the last foregoing paragraph without the consent of every mesne landlord, any mesne landlord whose consent has not been given thereto shall be entitled to compensation from the competent landlord for any loss arising in consequence of the giving of the notice or the making of the agreement.

(2) If the competent landlord applies to any mesne landlord for his consent to such a notice or agreement, that consent shall not he unreasonably withheld, but may be given subject to any conditions which may be reasonable (including conditions as to the modification of the proposed notice or agreement or as to the payment of compensation by the competent landlord).

(3) Any question arising under this paragraph whether consent has been unreasonably withheld or whether any conditions imposed on the giving of consent are unreasonable shall be determined by the court.

Consent of superior landlord required for agreements affecting his interest

5. An agreement between the competent landlord and the tenant made for the purposes of Part II of this Act in a case where—
(a) the competent landlord is himself a tenant, and
(b) the agreement would apart from this paragraph operate as respects any period after the coming to an end of the interest of the competent landlord,
shall not have effect unless every superior landlord who will be the immediate landlord of the tenant during any part of that period is a party to the agreement.

Withdrawal by competent landlord of notice given by mesne landlord

6. Where the competent landlord has given a notice under section 25 of this Act to terminate the relevant tenancy and, within two months after the giving of the notice, a superior landlord—
(a) becomes the competent landlord; and
(b) gives to the tenant notice in the prescribed form that he withdraws the notice previously given;


the notice under section 25 of this Act shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the giving of a further notice under that section by the competent landlord.

Duty to inform superior landlords

7. If the competent landlord's interest in the property comprised in the relevant tenancy is a tenancy which will come or can be brought to an end within sixteen months (or any further time by which it may be continued under section 36(2) or section 64 of this Act) and he gives to the tenant under the relevant tenancy a notice under section 25 of this Act to terminate the tenancy or is given by him a notice under section 26(3) of this Act:—
(a) the competent landlord shall forthwith send a copy of the notice to his immediate landlord; and
(b) any superior landlord whose interest in the property is a tenancy shall forthwith send to his immediate landlord any copy which has been sent to him in pursuance of the preceding sub-paragraph or this subparagraph.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES: REPEALS

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 23, line 43, at end insert:

1969 c. xxxviii.
The York Corporation Act 1969.
Section 24.

This Amendment repeals Section 24 of the York Corporation Act, 1969, in relation to any deeds registry which has been closed for all purposes under the Bill. The Section which excluded from the operative area of the deeds registries any areas transferred from a Riding to the City of York will become otiose when the registry is closed. It is the case that in this instance I am moving an Amendment to a Section of an Act which received the Royal Assent in July of this year, but that is a matter which I mention for the record. It illustrates the difficulties which sometimes attach to straightening out difficulties and getting a complicated part of the law into proper alignment and form.

Mr. Graham Page: Since this will be the last Amendment to be discussed, and I entirely agree with it, and as there will be no Third Reading debate, may I take the opportunity to express gratitude to

the Solicitor-General for the courteous way in which he has always rejected our Amendments and for the very careful consideration he has given to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, column 3, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert 'Section 10(6)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.52 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is described variably, and usefully it may be thought, in its Long Title. It would be difficult, I think, to find a shorter and more effective statement of what the Bill is about than that Long Title contains. It states that the Bill is
to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments".
The history of this Bill begins with the Law Commission Act, 1965, which set up the Law Commission and included among its duties the preparation of a comprehensive programme of consolidation and statute law revision. In the Law Commission's first programme of consolidation and Statute Law revision the Commission's approach to revision of the Statute Book is explained at length. The Commission said that the ordinary Statute Law Revision Acts with which we are all familiar have played a very helpful part in facilitating the production of a revised edition of the Statutes by striking out unrepealed provisions which have become inoperative.
The Commission expressed its opinion that there is room for a still more forceful approach and said that it proposed to


work systematically through the existing Statutes with a view to recommending the repeal not only of matters which can be treated as inoperative, but also of matters which no longer serve a substantial purpose. It expressed the hope that this new approach to Statute Law Revision will not only reduce appreciably the number of Acts remaining to be consolidated but also facilitate consolidation by getting rid of those unnecessary provisions which tend to make consolidation difficult.
In May this year the Law Commission published its first Report on Statute Law Revision and the Bill we are now considering appeared as an appendix to that Report. I am sure we are all grateful to the Law Commission for the skill and energy with which it has tackled this exceedingly difficult task. I have spoken so far, for convenience, of the Law Commission, but I wish to pay tribute to the assistance of the Scottish Law Commission during consultations about the Bill.
The Bill has been given very careful consideration by the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills, which heard evidence on six days. It will be seen from the Report that it subjected the Bill to detailed criticism and made about 30 Amendments. I am sure that this is a guarantee that the Bill carries out what is promised in its Long Title, the repeal of enactments which are no longer of practical utility. I am sure that we would all wish to pay tribute to the members of the Joint Committee for their hard work, which has saved the House having to examine every part of it in more detail.
There must in this type of work be great reliance on the investigation by experts of the content of Bills. Such reliance does not involve the slightest derogation from our obligations as legislators. This theme has interested me, as it has interested other hon. Members. Only this morning, I thought for my own interest that I would pick out two of the long series of Statute Law Revision Acts and I chanced upon those of 1927 and 1963. Taking these at random, I found that the 1927 Act, which was extremely extensive, passed without a single word of comment, criticism or even observation in the House, on the basis of what,

I suggest, is a perfectly intelligible and correct reliance upon expert work.
I put forward that view of the matter anticipating—it may not occur—possible comment upon what is proposed in a Bill of this kind and to express the hope that the House will very much consider the merits of the whole matter in the context of the recommendations which we have from so distinguished a body as the Joint Committee.
Of course, there has been a great deal of consultation about this Bill. The Law Commission's Report records that the Church of England authorities were consulted, and it will be observed that nearly three pages of the Repeals Schedule is taken up with ecclesiastical enactments. The Report also records discussions with various other bodies, including those representing professional and academic lawyers.
The Bill, which begins by repealing a statute of 1297 and continues through the centuries, repealing on the way many Statutes of considerable historical significance and importance, is, of course, a veritable storehouse of legal treasure. The aim of all those who have been concerned with the preparation of this Bill has been to ensure that that treasure becomes something of historical interest only, which we believe can be properly and rightly effected. The repeal of an enactment does not mean that it ceases to be part of legal history. We shall have the same regard for these enactments when they are repealed as we have now. They will be available in the Statutes at large. The effect of this Bill will be to enable a slimmer edition of the Statutes revised to be prepared and to make the task of the consolidation of the statute law simpler. This will mean that one will not have to wade through pages of enactments which have no practical utility but which one may mistakenly believe it is still necessary to search.
Therefore, I recommend this Bill for Second Reading, recognising its importance, recognising the reliance placed upon the Joint Committee in the course that I recommend, believing that it is of the very greatest value that wherever possible there should be a paring down of our statute law and the elimination from its corpus of elements that have lost practical utility.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: Let me say at once that I shall end what I have to say by supporting this Motion, but I think it appropriate and desirable first to add something—and not necessarily just a little—to what the Solicitor-General has said. I agree with him that this is an important Measure. It is an important kind of Measure as well as being an important Measure in itself. It is fair to say that there are very few people in this House who know much, if anything, about it. That, I think, the Solicitor-General may also agree with.
Having participated in six out of the seven sittings of the Standing Committee upstairs, I have the advantage of having learned a little about the Bill, and we on this side of the House are also in the happy position that, whatever I say about the Bill today, nobody can say that we on this side of the House are in any way ill-disposed towards it.
If one thing is perfectly clear, it is that but for this side of the House the Lord Chancellor would not have got this Bill. I think it is worth drawing attention to this fact because we on this side of the House hope that this will not happen again.
For those who have not served on the Joint Committee on Consolidation and, therefore, do not know what happens there, let me preface what I have to say by pointing out that in order for there to be a quorum, there must be three of the noble Lords and three from this House present. I should like to echo the Solicitor-General's tribute to the Committee so far as it applies to the noble and learned Chairman of the Committee, who was quite indefatigable and an enormous help to the Committee, and to the noble and learned Lords who are members of that Committee who on every occasion produced their quorum, and more. But by the same token I ought to draw attention to the fact that if the Government want to get a Bill of this kind, they really must ensure that there is a quorum from the Commons, including some of their own Members.
The Solicitor-General does not look very pleased at my saying that. He may not be aware that there were occasions when that Committee met at 10.30 in the morning and, because there was not

a quorum on the Commons side—there were Commons Members from this side of the House but the Government had not ensured that there was a quorum on the Commons side—the Committee was kept waiting on one occasion till late in the morning and on another occasion it never did get started. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not have wished this to happen any more than others of us, and I hope that he will do what is in his power to see that such things do not happen again.
Because of what happened, the Committee became very behindhand in its consideration of the Bill. At its very last sitting, if the Committee had not completed its consideration of the Bill that day, it would not have been possible for the Bill to go through its remaining stages. I hope that the Solicitor-General is aware that the entire Commons membership present that day was from this side of the House. There was not a Government Member of the Commons contributing to the quorum. Thus, if any one of the Commons Members of the Committee from this side had walked out—there were three of us—the business of the Committee would have come to a halt and the Bill would have died.
As I say, whatever criticisms I may make of the Bill, it will be understood from those facts alone that we, at all events, have shown great good will towards it. I think that we can go so far as to claim credit for what is in it, for if we had not been there there would have been no Bill, and we can also claim credit for what is not in it, for it was Members from this side who were most active in ensuring that there were deletions from the Bill.
I come now to three criticisms. It is all very well our patting each other on the back and saying what a good job has been done. A good job has been done. But, to echo what Mr. Speaker said at one point during our proceedings yesterday, debate can be too good-humoured. If one is to serve a useful purpose on occasion, one looks for criticisms, for the weaknesses and bad things, not always the good.
There were three criticisms in this case. First, we have some doubt about the value of the whole exercise. A good deal of


work needs to be done to our statute law. In particular—I think that I can say this safe in the knowledge that there will no quarrel with it—current legislation could do with some improvement. It is common for a Government Bill to have a large number of Government Amendments made to it before it is passed, Amendments to improve the drafting and language, if nothing more. Even so, I do not imagine that any of us would be all that proud of some of the legislation which has passed out of this House in recent years, immediately to become the subject of difficult and protracted litigation.
I throw out the suggestion that such personnel, such expertise and such facilities as are available for considering the improvement of our statute law might be more usefully employed, if machinery could be devised to that end, in ensuring the greater excellence of current legislation than in removing out of the way legislation which ex hypothesi does not matter since the whole basis for removing it from the Statute Book is that it no longer has practical use so that to the practitioner it does not make much difference one way or another. It enables one to tidy up the Statutes revised, and if we could do all the things that need to be done in connection with our Statute Law, that would be a very useful task. But is this really the best use of our resources? Are there not perhaps better uses in the improvement of our Statute Law?
Second, it may well be that all concerned in promoting this Bill have gone too far, too fast, and, in many instances, in the wrong directions. I shall not enlarge upon that now, as it will be more convenient for me to do so in a moment.
Third, I must voice this suspicion. There have been reasons to believe that some of the authors of this legislation have had a rather more far-reaching purpose than merely tidying up the Statutes revised. I think that I can best explain what I mean by adding a little flesh and bones to the history of the matter as recited by the Solicitor-General.
The Bill owes its origin to the Law Commission, acting in pursuance of what it said it would do in its first Report. In March, 1968, it published a draft Bill. It was not one that was presented or

printed in this House at that stage. The Law Commission printed it, and issued a Press notice saying that it had been drafted, giving an indication of some of the things it did, and saying where it was available. We on this side of the House warmly welcome this step. One of the troubles with current legislation is that often there is no time for it to be sufficiently considered before it starts going through the procedures of this House. I congratulate the Law Commission on this step, which may well be a precedent to be adopted wherever possible.
It proved its usefulness in this case. In the Press notice the Law Commission announced that it was proposed in the draft Bill to abolish freehold. The draft Bill did have provisions abolishing freehold tenure, and that would have been an absolutely sweeping change. It is difficult to see what connection that had with Statute law repeal, or the purpose of this Bill as correctly outlined by the Solicitor-General today.
We should take warning note of this. If we are to have Statute Law repeal Bills, they should be confined to Statute Law repeal, and we should be careful to ensure that no attempt is made to introduce sweeping changes of this nature, which might well have gone unobserved but for the Press notice, and had not this been noticed by practitioners who spend their lives in conveyancing and the like, and who really know what they are talking about as regards freehold. They thought it was crazy, and immediately pursued with the Land Commission the question of precisely what was proposed.
I am credibly informed by those whom I regard as knowledgeable that the proposal to abolish freehold was absolutely revolutionary, and could not conceivably have been put forward by anyone with any practical knowledge of freehold law and conveyancing.
When I say that, I do not mean to imply any criticism of the Law Commissioners themselves. Obviously, they cannot be responsible for everything that comes from their office and, to do justice and give credit where it is due, as soon as practitioners like Mr. George Newsom, Q.C., Mr. Victor Hallett, and Mr. Ted Nugee, Chancery counsel who have practised for many years in that field, having


seen the Press notice, drew the attention of the Law Commissioners to the seriousness of what was proposed, the Commissioners dropped it from the Bill.
Likewise, there were in the original draft Bill Statutes which it was proposed to repeal, important statutes like Quia Eurptores and De Davis Conditionalibus which, though not the sole topic of conversation in all the places we frequent, are, to those who practise in the law of property and particularly in connection with trusts, Statutes which they know to have not just a little practical significance left but to have great practical significance. Again, when this was drawn to the attention of the Law Commissioners and its experts by the practitioners, they were immediately dropped.
So we got the Bill presented to the House and printed in April, 1969, to which a number of substantial changes had been made because of the consultation which followed the adoption of the procedure of making the draft available before it ever became a Bill before this House. A useful purpose was thus served by the adoption of that procedure.
But it leaves behind the question "What were the authors of the Bill thinking of in the first place when they included in their original draft Clauses abolishing freehold which was nothing to do with statute law repeal and would have introduced quite revolutionary concepts into the law of property?" Why were such Clauses included in a Bill repealing a mass of Statutes which were supposed to have no practical effect?
When we got the Bill as presented to the House, as a result of the preliminary conversations, those very important provisions had gone. In addition, quite a lot of other provisions to which I need not refer in detail had also been removed. There were, however, still an immense number of Statutes of parts of Statutes scheduled to the Bill for repeal, and the question arose as to how to deal with a Bill of this kind.
The noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, courteously consulted us on our side as to what would be an appropriate method to deal with such a Bill because—and I do not think I do him injustice when I say this—our impression is that he felt, as we did, that this was quite a new

exercise and that there was no established procedure wholly suited for the task of considering a Bill like this. So, by agreement between the two sides, a resolution was passed referring the Bill to the Joint Committee on Consolidation. But it is not consolidation at all. It is nothing to do with consolidation. That of itself raised the question whether the appropriate course in future is to refer a Bill of this kind to that Committee.
In appointing their members to the Joint Committee on Consolidation both sides have in mind the special tasks which that Committee has to perform. Broadly speaking, it is a Committee with a task which is defined by Statute. When we have a Consolidation Measure which is consolidation under the 1949 Act, what we have to decide is whether minor corrections and improvements are in fact within the definition in the 1949 Act, and that is a lawyer's job. It is therefore perfectly reasonable and sensible for that Committee to be composed entirely of practising lawyers nominated by both sides.
However, when we come to consider a Bill of this kind where ex hypothesi what is proposed is the repeal of statutory provisions which still have some effect in law, but which are said no longer to have any practical use, a value judgment is involved, a judgment as to whether in fact they have any further use. With the consolidation Measures sent to us Session by Session there is no element of judgment. With this kind of Bill there are two stages. First, the lawyers have to say whether a statutory provision has any effect. But that is already done in the case of a Bill like this, because one starts from the proposition that many of the statutory provisions are still effective. The question, therefore, becomes whether they should be repealed although as a matter of law they still have some effect. I question whether that is a matter solely for lawyers.
The other aspect is that, contrary to the usual custom in ordinary Standing Committees, in that Committee we do not have the assistance of one of the Law Officers. I ask the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor when they are considering how Bills like this should be treated in future to consider whether that is not something to be taken into account. On this Committee we were in


some doubt about precisely what our task was and precisely how we should go about it and there were occasions when it might have been of great assistance to have had a Law Officer present.
The Committee had not had a Bill of this kind to consider before—I do not know that any Committee has had—and the first thing we had to decide was how we were to approach all these repeals, how we were to decide whether to allow them to stay in the Bill. There was a question of what we were entitled to do with them anyway, but we concluded that if we did not like them, we should strike them out and leave it to the House to correct us if we were wrong. That does not seem to have done any harm. We had to consider what sort of test we were to apply to each of the proposals in the Bill.
The Law Commission made it clear that it had acted on the basis that the onus was upon anyone wishing to keep any one of these provisions to show that it had some use and ought not to be repealed. The Committee concluded that it could not possibly accept that basis.
I do not think that any Committee of this House could. It would mean that any Committee of the House, or a Committee of the whole House considering such a Bill would have to accept the recommendations of the Law Commission or could only strike out any of them if it satisfied itself that that one had some useful purpose left. That would be an impossible task. The Committee decided that it had to look at every single one of them, but that the onus must be reversed, it must lie on those who sought to repeal a provision to show, at least prima facie, that it no longer had any useful purpose.
I take a little time over this because I hope that what has emerged from the labours of the Bill will be accepted in future, that the onus should be the opposite from what it was when the Bill started. Once we accept that proposition, it makes the whole exercise very different. It means a great deal more work for the Law Commissioners and the parliamentary draftsman who has the misfortune to find himself with a Bill of this kind in his lap. I want to make it clear that nothing I say is in any way a criticism of any individual.
What I am trying to do is to draw the attention of the House to the enormity

of the task facing everyone concerned with a Bill like this. There was no one for whom our hearts bled more frequently than the parliamentary draftsman who found himself with this Bill and who gave us such enormous assistance with it. A very detailed note was produced, but despite all the help that the Law Commissioners and the parliamentary draftsman could give us, they could not give us, on their own, all the help we wanted. In this instance we called eight witnesses.
Happily, we had the opportunity to call very knowledgeable witnesses, because a number of practising lawyers had interested themselves in this and expressed their views either to the Law Commission, other lawyers, or the Chairman of our Committee. As a result, we were aware that they might have something to contribute, and their evidence was very helpful. Consequently, 30 alterations were made, 28 of them being amendments, one of them being the deletion of a Clause.
In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, as reprinted as amended, it says:
The attached Bill is different from that Bill"—
that is the first draft Bill—
in that the Joint Committee on Consolidation amended that Bill by removing the original clause 4 and a few repeals.
If I had read that without knowing anything about what had happened I would have thought that very little had happened. It is only right that the House should know that there were 30 Amendments, not just minor ones, changing commas or full stops. They were a decision of the Committee that something which it was proposed to repeal ought not to be repealed.
Attention should be drawn to the fact that we left out Clause 4. I call the Solicitor-General's attention to this because we should learn something for the future. Clause 4 as printed read:
Any common law right to enclose or approve common land is hereby abolished.
You, Mr. Speaker, and the House will be happy to know that it is unnecessary for the making of my point to say anything about enclosing common land, which is a highly technical subject. It says:
Any common law right to enclose … land is hereby abolished".


I question what that has to do with statute law repeal.
We went into this matter in a little more depth in Committee. A gentleman from the appropriate Ministry explained to us what was happening. But I think that basically the reason why the Clause was deleted was that hon. Members, and certainly myself, found it difficult to see what place the abolition of a common law right had in a Statute Law repeal Bill. The Solicitor-General may care to comment on that later or to bear it in mind and to see that steps are taken to ensure that Statute Law repeal Bills are confined to statute law.
The purpose of all that is to put a little more information before the House about what happened. I venture to think, without disrespect to him, that some of it may be new to the Solicitor-General. That is why I have enlarged on the matter, because the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be everywhere at the same time, nor can he read the evidence and discussions of every committee. I hope that he will feel it useful to have drawn to his attention some of the things which happened in committees of which he was not a member and at which there was no Law Officer and which may be of importance for the future.
It is to be hoped that from all that, and a lot more which I have not gone into, we have learned a number of things. I should like briefly to list some of the things which I hope we have learned.
First, however respectable the stable from which such a Measure emanates, it requires the closest scrutiny. I say that without a shadow of criticism of anybody concerned. It is a big task about which different people may have such different ideas that whatever comes from the authors must be carefully scrutinised by others. For those reasons I have given, it is doubtful whether the Joint Committee is an appropriate body to deal with this kind of Bill. I do not know at the moment of any better body, but that does not mean that we should not, by discussion between the two sides—because there is nothing party about this—look for some better method of dealing with such a Bill.
To get through the Bill, the Joint Committee had to meet, I think, three

days, certainly two days, at 10.30 and on at least one other at one o'clock. Because it is a Committee composed largely of practising lawyers because of the job which it normally does—that job being one which may suitably be done by practising lawyers—it habitually meets at 4.30 to get a good attendance and so that it does not clash with other committees. If a committee formed for that kind of purpose and meeting habitually at that kind of hour finds itself faced with a task which necessitates it meeting at different hours and sitting throughout the day, it is not surprising that on occasion a quorum is not sustained.
Next, we hope that it has been learned and is accepted that in future cases the onus must lie on those who seek to repeal to establish at least a prima facie case that there is no practical purpose in retaining the measures which it is proposed to repeal. Once that is accepted, as it must be, it follows that one cannot expect the Law Commission or the parliamentary draftsmen on their own to do all the research that is needed. Here, if one is to have the onus that way round, it is necessary somehow to bring in the expert practitioner. I am trying to draw the distinction between the academic and the practical.
To give an instance of how it worked in this case, Part II of the Schedule dealt with the repeal of ecclesiastical measures and, at an early stage, a very high-powered committee was established by the Church of England. Mr. Walter Wiggles-worth was a member of it. Each measure in the Schedule was considered by that body. It recommended that some measures which it was proposed to repeal should not be repealed. They were omitted and never appeared in the Bill as it came before this House.
When the Bill came before the Joint Committee, no single alteration was made to that part of the Schedule. It had already been considered in detail by a committee of experts acknowledged by the Joint Committee as knowing what they were doing. Mr. Wigglesworth gave evidence to the Joint Committee. It was necessary for him to add only a word here and there on what the Church of England committee had done, and that part of the Schedule went through without alteration.
If it were possible for that kind of examination to be made of each part of such a Bill so that that kind of evidence was then forthcoming to the Joint Committee, it would be able to deal properly with such a Bill with confidence. One of the lessons which we all felt emerged was that some additional assistance of that kind is necessary to everyone concerned—the Law Commission, the parliamentary draftsmen and the Joint Committee—so that one has the knowledge that every point of view has been brought to bear upon the proposed measure.
To some extent, something like it was done in other parts of the Bill. It was recited in the notes that we were given that a committee of practising barristers and academic lawyers had considered another part of the Bill. It turned out that they had not had the opportunity to consider it in the way in which the ecclesiastical parts had been considered. All that it amounted to was that these interested people had expressed their views about certain provisions. They proved to be very useful, because in many cases they were the basis upon which we in the Joint Committee made our Amendments.
Somehow or other, to complete the proper consideration of a Bill, the expert practical opinion must be mobilised in some way. The view which I formed was that while we had great help from Mr. George Newsom, Q.C., Mr. Victor Hallett, and Mr. Nugee, it is far too haphazard to leave it to the voluntary efforts of a few. They spent a lot of time considering many of the provisions to see whether there was anything left in them, but they could not reasonably be expected to look at every one in detail.
We must consider whether, in future cases, we should not enlist that kind of support at a fee. When we have a number of statutory provisions relating, for instance, to the law of property, which someone suggests should be repealed, should we not do the job properly and instruct lawyers versed in those fields to advise us and should we expect them to do it for nothing?
There are two more lessons which we should have learned from all this. The first, which I hope will be generally agreed, is that we should never ever try

such a big one as this. About 250 Statutes were concerned. It was almost impossible. I hope that I am being fair in saying I should think that this must have been an absolute nightmare for parliamentary draftsmen. How can any Committee expect someone to advise it on 250 different Measures, however good he is? It is asking the impossible of those upon whom we rely for advice.
Though the points which I have mentioned would still be relevant, it would certainly assist if in future cases Bills like this one dealt with perhaps just one subject—in this case one part of the Schedule. If we had been dealing only with the constitutional provisions, our task would have been easier. At least, those assisting us, the parliamentary draftsmen and others, could have concentrated their minds on that one section of the law.
Lastly, I suggest that such a Bill should never be started again so late in the Session. If it is to be done, this kind of job must be done properly, and must be started sooner in the Session. This came to the Joint Committee in June. Had it not been for the Committee's great efforts, the Bill would never have reached the Statute Book this Session. I think that the Government asked too much of the Committee—and I am not talking about myself. A member of the other House was its chairman and to maintain a quorum there had to be at least three other members of that House, as well as three from this House.
The Solicitor-General said that he wanted to voice the Government's appreciation of the Committee's work. I go further. I hope that no Government will ever again ask of that Committee what was asked of it in this instance—that it should consider a Bill with this immense number of provisions, beginning in June. If we have learned all or some of these lessons, the exercise will have been worth while.
As I said, I doubt whether it will serve much other purpose, although it has done some tidying on the Statute Book. It will make no practical difference to anyone except to those who use the Statutes revised, and I do not know how many of them there are. Before we embark on such an exercise again, I hope that we shall consider whether all the


expertise which goes into it might be better employed, albeit in the same field of improving the Statute.
But I welcome the Bill because in itself it will serve some useful purpose as it has been amended. More especially I welcome it because the exercise of having it passed through the two Houses will have taught all of us who have been or may be concerned with such an exercise a great many lessons which we shall not fail to observe and which we shall remember when we next embark upon it.
Subject to that, I support the Solicitor-General in expressing the hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading.

9.46 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I hope that it will not be considered out of place if someone who was not a member of the Committee says a few words on the Bill, which I respectfully suggest has some very important constitutional implications. I should like to join in the recognition of the very important work which has been done by the Committee.
Indeed, it is worth going a little further into what is said in the Explanatory Memorandum. I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) very strongly in pointing out that the Explanatory Memorandum does not do justice to what the Committee did. Referring to the original Bill, it reads:
The attached Bill is different from that Bill in that the Joint Committee on Consolidation amended that Bill by removing the original Clause 4 and a few repeals".
It is not wasting time to remind the House, and possibly others who are interested in the matter and who may not have appreciated it, what these "few repeals" included. In the Bill as originally proposed by the Law Commission not only was the Statute of Westminster as first passed to be entirely omitted except for one small part of it but, in addition, the first Article of the Confirmation of Magna Carta was to be repealed. We now find that Articles 1, 9, 29 and 37 are to be retained. As proposed by the Law Commission, Article 1 was to go.
We have been told that the basis upon which these repeals were to proceed was that things should be removed which were

no longer of any practical utility. I shall therefore not be wasting time if I read the words of the first article of what is described as the Great Charter of Liberties of England and the liberties confirmed by King Edward in the 25th year of his reign.
I shall read the second part of the first chapter:
We have granted also, and given to all the freemen of our realm for us and our heirs for ever these liberties underwritten to have and to hold to them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever.
It was proposad that that, the foundation of our British liberties, should be removed. Fortunately the Joint Committee did not agree and, after not very much discussion, it was recommended for inclusion. I need not enlarge on the subject, except to add that cynical people might say that if that Amendment had not been made, it would have been removed. However, the Joint Committee of this House and another place reaffirmed that it is still the foundation of our liberties.
It is right and proper, when a Statute of this kind is being discussed, that we should realise the tremendous matters that are involved. Sometimes we let these things go by too easily. It is something to be thankful for and proud of that the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament insisted on retaining that Article.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The Solicitor-General paid tribute to the work of the Joint Committee, of which I was a member. That tribute should, of course, go primarily to the noble Lord, its Chairman, who did great work, and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who was diligent in his research and who did much to avoid some of the errors that might otherwise have appeared in the Bill.
The Solicitor-General also expressed the view that the composition of the Joint Committee was such that it guaranteed that no mistakes would be made. I wish that I could share his confidence because, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, our task was so great that the Joint Committee was not able to do more than make a superficial check.
At the end of the day nearly 250 Acts were involved. In some cases all, and in others part, of those Statutes were repealed and the time allowed at the end of the Session, of a few days, made it an exceptionally difficult task. It was impossible for the Joint Committee to do more than take on trust the reports that were made to it.
Those reports were made by parliamentary draftsmen whose diligence and effort to get the matters right nobody doubts. However, apart from certain sample checks made on parts of Acts to be repealed. no more could be done. On occasion, those sample checks were disturbing because, as a result of probing, it was found necessary in some instances to make Amendments.
I could not help feeling that we were being treated rather like a rubber stamp that we were required to give a seal of respectable approval to work that had been done behind the scenes, particularly in view of the vast amount of legislation to be repealed. I do not like taking lightly the repeal of Acts such as the Confirmation of Magna Carta and the Statute of Westminster, along with others which have formed part of our history. One wondered whether it was necessary to do it, since the purpose was to take from the Statute Book Acts which were spent or which had no further purpose.
I would ask whether it was necessary to do anything about this. I wonder whether we have probed sufficiently, whether we have made the value judgment as to whether those parts of Acts that were not spent still had sufficient purpose to keep them alive. The reason for removing the spent Acts was given as reduction of printing. However, in view of the problems the Joint Committee had in obtaining copies of some of those Acts, there seem to have been very little expenditure on printing for a long time, in some cases, only one copy of an Act was available. I do not share the confidence of the Solicitor-General that he can guarantee that no mistakes have been made.
I wonder whether we can ever know for sure if part of an Act has any effect now. Can we think of circumstances in which they may have an effect in a few minutes? Obviously, it is unlikely that we can do so. Much of our case law,

those parts of it based upon the interpretation of Statutes at any rate, may go once we repeal the Statute which is the root of the precedent.
I wonder why we have such a mixed bag. We have heard of the great variety of legislation included. We dealt with the law of property, various ecclesiastical measures, legislation relating to children, and so on. It would have been possible to have brought many of these repeals into our discussions on the relevant current legislation. For example, we have been discussing the law of property this evening. Would it not have been possible for the repeals now being made affecting property to have been dealt with then?
Another item of legislation being repealed deals with children and again earlier today we have been discussing a Bill dealing with children. Finance Acts are being repealed. We have had sufficient opportunity, with all the Finance Acts that have gone through the House, to have mopped up these repeals then. It is much easier when dealing with specific legislation to concentrate one's mind on that subject and I would suggest that in future we should mop up certain Acts in current legislation.
The Committee did its best within the limitations of time imposed upon it. There was a vast amount of legislation and a limit upon the advice available. That time might have been better spent in looking at some of our current legislation. I doubt whether the Bill will make life better or easier for anyone, or whether it will make our laws more intelligible.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the proceedings on the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour though opposed.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Tom Boardman: The time spent on that might have been more beneficial if it were spent on current legislation. I echo the suggestions made by my hon. Friends. I support the Bill subject to the reservations I have made and the doubts I must express about whether we


have made some mistakes. I hope that in future such repealing legislation will be considered under a different procedure and taken in smaller packets so that more concentrated thought may be given to it and by that means we may avoid making mistakes which may well have occurred in this instance.

10.2 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I take the opportunity of dealing with one or two points which have been raised. I attach the greatest importance, as I know hon. and hon. and learned Members opposite do, to the developing relation between the Law Commission and this House and the developing relation between the Law Commission and the Joint Committee.
I think the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) did the House a great service in going to the extent he did into a consideration of these matters in his treatment of this Bill, this being a Bill in which, as has been observed during the debate, there is the greatest dependence in the detail of repeals of Statutes carried out by the Bill on the expertise and investigation by members of the Joint Committee and others. I thought the hon. and learned Member made a very valuable contribution in that respect.
What he said and what the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said, brought home the amount of work that was done by the Committee. It is true that certain matters were referred to which perhaps I have not fully appreciated. I think the hon. and learned Member was perfectly right—I wish to echo his observation in this regard—to draw particular attention to the service rendered by the noble Lord who served as Chairman of the Joint Committee. I am glad that that was mentioned.
The Government will of course give close regard to what has been said about the operation in respect of this Bill of the developing system of the relationship between the Law Commission and this House and Committees of both Houses. I understand that there were certain difficulties and very understandable difficulties about attendance before the Joint Committee. In the course of the debate

I have had some inquiries made and, purely for the record, I think it may be of some interest to bear in mind that in the six days' sessions of the Joint Committee there were five Members of this House who were able to attend. On the second occasion there were again five, as there were on the third occasion. On each of these first three days, I point out just as a matter of comment and record, the attendances were four from this side and one from the other.
I make no point of that because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, at the last sitting of the Joint Committee there was an occasion when no hon. Members from this side of the House were able to attend upon the Committee. In those six days, there were 17 attendances from this side and 13 from the Opposition side. It is right to draw the inference that these figures indicate some difficulty that hon. Members must have felt in attending on the work of the Committee. It was, perhaps, a rather mechanical difficulty, but the implications are important and we will study them.
Attention was drawn to the history of Clause 4. It was suggested, as I understood by way of criticism of the existing process, that it is possible for provisions which may be open to the very greatest objection to reach the Committee, and that the very greatest importance therefore attaches to the investigating screen which the Committee supplies. If I may respectfully say so, this was the point which was brought to our attention so helpfully by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and I readily acknowledge it. What is, perhaps, satisfactory in this part of our consideration of the matter is that the outcome, anyhow shows that the Joint Committee was able, as a matter of narrative, to afford to the House the kind of protection one would hope and expect that it would give.
Another matter rather within this category was referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman when he spoke of the original Clause 4. For the record, my understanding is that the original Clause 4 was included simply because the Law Commission wanted to repeal Chapter 46, I think, of the Statute of Westminster the Second, which, in effect, extended an early Statute about the enclosure of commons. That earlier


Statute was the Statute of Merton which had previously been repealed by the Statute Law Reform Act, 1953, and it was uncertain whether the common law right of enclosure still existed. This, of course, was a highly technical matter, and the understanding of the Law Commission was that the common law right was not exercised, and this formal abolition was simply designed to support the repeal of Chapter 46.
I draw attention to the history of that background simply by way of explaining it and, in a sense, of justifying it, but here, again, is an example of a good result emerging from our existing procedures under which the great learning and scolarship which operates in this field, as in other fields, presents itself within the Law Commission, without inhibition, as it were, for consideration by a Joint Committee, and for the kind of safeguards which the procedures of that Joint Committee may offer.

Mr. Percival: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for giving way. I pay tribute to his off-the-cuff exposition of the Statute of Merton. The point that I was making was that this was expressed to be the abolition of a common law right. It is questionable what place that has in a statute law repeal Bill, but this was related to the original proposal to do something much more far-reaching, namely, to abolish the freehold. I was hoping that the Solicitor-General would indicate agreement with the principle of what I was saying, if not with the detailed point on Clause 4, that such wide-ranging things should not be introduced on a statute repeal Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the point, but my main objective in this connection is to show how, in respect of the very important matter raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey and with respect to the treatment of Clause 4 by the Joint Committee, the existing procedures under which the Law Commission presents its work for consideration and investigation by the Joint Committee appear to be overall justified by the outcome and the result. That is the point that I want particularly to emphasise.
As I say, I think the debate has been of very great value in indicating the matters which, in the developing relation

of the Law Commission with the House and with the Joint Committee, need attention and vigilance. I think they are very important. I think the outcome from what may sometimes have been a rather anxious process is satisfactory.
I think this is a valuable Measure. I am glad that after all the comments that have been made, hon. Members opposite have been able to agree with us that the resulting Bill now before the House is valuable.

Mr. Graham Page: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman not address his mind to what, as I understood, was the most important point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) in considering whether the Joint Select Committee is rightly constituted for this job? The Joint Select Committee must be the watchdog for the House in vetting Bills of this sort, even more than on consolidation Bills. This watchdog on this occasion was given too big a bone to chew. Also there is the question of policy arising and, therefore, the matter of the personnel of the Committee—whether it should consist of all lawyers or whether it should have a more general outlook than merely the legal outlook; whether it is the right sort of Committee for this job.

The Solicitor-General: I will certainly consider that matter. I think the point
is perfectly clear. It raises interesting issues. My present disposition is to regard the Joint Committee as constituted and as at present carrying out its functions as admirably suited for this purpose. But the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend have brought forward under this head matters which undoubtedly deserve consideration, and they will receive it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Perry.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

Question proposed, That this be the Schedule to the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I think that there is a misprint at line 15 on page 5, the Statute of Richard II, Royal Presentations to Benefices—
Chapter 1, so far as repealed".
That cannot be right. If it is already repealed, it need not be repealed again. I imagine that the word should be "unrepealed". Perhaps it would be possible to put that right at this stage.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that matter. It will be investigated, and what can be done will be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time (Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

10.18 p.m.

The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Shore): I beg to move,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from £8,600 to £9,800 per annum and the date from which, under subsections (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rate be 1st July 1969.

Mr. Speaker: It occurred to me that we might at the same time take the next Order, that is, the Motion relating to the salary of the Parliamentary Commissioner,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased from £8,600 to £9,800 per annum and the date from which this resolution is to take effect be 1st July 1969.
If both sides of the House approve, so be it. We shall discuss them together.

Mr. Shore: It may be helpful to the House if I explain briefly the purpose of both Motions, in view of the similarities between the two cases. Both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner are in the special position of being officers of the House. Their salaries are borne on the Consolidated Fund and can be altered only by Resolutions of the House. This may, perhaps, seem a cumbersome procedure, but it follows from the fact that these two officers are responsible directly to the House and are thus independent of the Government Departments whose work they scrutinise. The procedure is less cumbersome than it used to be. Before the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, 1957, an Act of Parliament was necessary to alter the Comptroller and Auditor General's salary.
The proposals to increase these two officers' salaries follow from the increases in the salaries of the higher Civil Service recommended by the Standing Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service under the chairmanship of Lord Plowden. As a result of the

Committee's recommendations, the pay of Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service increased from £8,600 to £9,800 with effect from 1st July this year. The salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been the same as that of a permanent head of Department ever since the office was set up in 1866. When the Parliamentary Commissioner was officially appointed in April 1967 his salary was also fixed at the level of a Permanent Secretary. The Motions therefore propose that these two officers should keep in step with Permanent Secretaries and receive the same increases from the same operative date.
Both offices represent important parts of our constitution. One is over 100 years old, the other less than three years old, but together they play the vital rôle of watchdogs on behalf of Parliament, and, through Parliament, the people of this country, over the activities of Government Departments. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a warm tribute to the work of the present holders of these offices and the devotion and skill with which they carry out their duties. I am sure that I speak for the House as a whole in expressing our gratitude for their services.
I commend the Motions to the House.

10.22 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, is unfortunately unable to be present this evening as he has a longstanding important engagement outside the House. But he has asked me to express his regret and his welcome for this proposal. It is perhaps appropriate that I should say this as II am the Chairman of the sister Committee, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
I am certain that I speak for every member of my Committee, every member of our sister Committee, and every Member of the House in welcoming the proposal and in saying that we who work with these two officers of the House can echo most heartily everything that has been said from the Government Front Bench. These two officers serve us


splendidly, and we think that this is an entirely appropriate measure to present to the House.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Perhaps I might first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment and join with him in the words of acknowledgement he has extended to the two gentlemen covered by the Motions. It is entirely appropriate that we should link them because, as he rightly said, both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner are concerned with protecting the public interest. In many respects the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner was modelled on that of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
It is absolutely right that we should adopt what might seem, to an outsider, the rather clumsy procedure of authorising increases in the salaries of these two officers by means of Resolutions in the House. It is the case that it is their impartiality which is all-important, and for that reason it is right and proper that we should approve the matter in the House itself.
On previous occasions, there has been some question as to whether these increases should not be automatic, but I think that the view has been, quite rightly, that we should treat these officers as different from members of the Civil Service but it is also right that their salaries should be kept in line with those of the Civil Service.
There is, perhaps, one point which I might query with the right hon. Gentleman. We have had a series of increases of this kind. In 1964 the sum went up from £7,000 to £8,285, in 1966 it went up to £8,600, and now it is proposed to raise it to £9,800. I would not wish to oppose the increase in any way because we believe it right and proper that such heavy responsibilities should be reasonably rewarded.
But the figure is made retrospective to 1st July last, and I am not quite clear why it is that this should be so and why we do not debate this matter before the increase normally becomes due rather than retrospectively, because I think that

the House, rightly, feels it better to anticipate these things rather than cover them retrospectively.
I, too, know how sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is at being unable to be present tonight and I know that all of us on this side of the House, as on the other, wish to express our thanks to the Comptroller and Auditor General for the tremendously important work he does. We are deeply and continuously indebted to him.
I have one or two questions with regard to the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner. It is a welcome change, in a sense, that we should be debating the matter of his salary here because, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, when the office was first established considerable controversy arose, particularly on the Consolidated Fund, because the appointment was made before any legislation establishing the Parliamentary Commissioner was actually passed and approved by the House. So we welcome the fact that the Government are planning on this occasion to cover the question of his salary. I am sure that the House would wish, too, to express its thanks to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the immensely heavy burden he carries.
I want to raise one point in this connection. We know from what has been said in the House that it is proposed to extend the Parliamentary Commissioner's duties to Northern Ireland. I am not quite clear from these Motions whether it is intended that this shall be the total extent of his remuneration or whether some adjustment will be made as far as his work in Northern Ireland is concerned. In other words. I am not clear whether this will be his full-time salary, as it were. or his part-time salary.
Given the stringency with which the House has always controlled this matter, perhaps this is a point on which we should have some elucidation from the right hon. Gentleman tonight. But, over all, I certainly join both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and, I am sure, all right hon. and hon. Members, in expressing our thanks to the holders of these two offices whose salaries we are proposing


now, rightly, to increase to the level suggested in the Motions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from £8,600 to £9,800 per annum and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rate be 1st July 1969.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (SALARY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased from £8,600 to £9,800 per annum and the date from which this resolution is to take effect be 1st July 1969.—[Mr. Shore.]

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that we were taking these two Motions together.

Mr. Higgins: I thought so, too, Mr. Speaker, but I raised certain matters and I wonder whether we are to have a reply.

Mr. Shore: By leave of the House, I will certainly consider the question put to me by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about the duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner in relation to Northern Ireland, but I believe that the Order relates to his total activity, certainly on behalf of this House of Commons. However, I will look into that and, if I am incorrect, I will of course let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the date of payment. I believe that the explanation is that the previous increase in pay to Permanent Secretaries was on 1st July, three years ago, and that the effort here is simply to relate the increase of pay in the grade to the date on which the last financial year for pay, as it were, elapsed. It would not have been possible to make an announcement

before 1st July because at that time we had not made an announcement on behalf of the Government about the recommendations of the Plowden Committee about pay grades for the whole of the higher Civil Service.
I thank the hon. Member for Worthing and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for their expressions of confidence in the work of these two very distinguished servants of the House. I was aware of the reasons for the absence of the right hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who courteously informed me of them earlier this evening.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I had suggested, and I thought that the House had agreed, to take the two Motions together.

Mr. Ridley: I wanted to speak only in response to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I had no intention of intervening in the debate until it became clear that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to answer the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
If we are to be asked to pass this increase of salary, which I personally welcome, we should know whether this is all that is required for the Parliamentary Commissioner in relation to his new duties and whether it is retrospective. We should know whether it has been paid as from 1st July and whether the same thing has been done and payment made without parliamentary authority as in the first instance when the Parliamentary Commissioner was appointed. If that is the case, it points a slight lesson—that it would be helpful if the Government were to avoid doing this sort of thing in future. The House likes to make its decisions about these matters in advance rather than after increases have been paid. The answer given to my hon. Friend may be satisfactory and the money may not have been paid, but it was not clear from what the right hon. Gentleman said whether that was so.
If a Minister is to move Motions of this sort, he should have the answers to two perfectly straightforward and simple questions, namely, whether there is more


to come for the Parliamentary Commissioner in relation to his duties over Northern Ireland and whether it has been paid retrospectively.
Those are obvious questions which spring to mind and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have come armed with the answers. If he would be kind enough to tell us whether he can answer them I am sure that my hon. Friends would be inclined to agree entirely with the Order. The House deserves a little more information about this.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased from £8,600 to £9,800 per annum and the date from which this resolution is to take effect be 1st July 1969.

Orders of the Day — FOOTBALL (CHESTER COMMITTEE REPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: I congratulate the Minister for Sport on his elevation to the post of Minister of State. In some way I have a responsibility in this matter, because I spoke for the right hon. Member at his first public meeting as a candidate for Birmingham City Council. I would hesitate to accept either blame or credit for all that has happened since. Nevertheless our congratulations are sincere. While he has been successful in the promotion stakes, his club, Aston Villa, has not been doing so well.
I disclaim any special background knowledge to the Chester Report. My only claim to fame is that Denis Law and I were pupils at the same school in Aberdeen. Football is not only one of Britain's great national sports, but it is also big business. Some people might say, in the midst of the economic and industrial troubles confronting us, that it is strange that we should be raising this matter.
Most of us would agree that the sport has a tremendous impact on the life of

the country, upon the promotion of industrial harmony. It affects the lives and happiness of millions. There is also the question of the injection of public money into the sport. Government grants were responsible for saving the World Cup arrangements and enabled the F.A. to run the competition in 1966. This was a Government decision which cloaked a great deal of inefficiency by the Association in making the necessary preparations. I would not go so far as the Observer did in an article of 28th February, 1965, in describing this as:
… a shabby story of dithering and neglect over four years.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Chester Report recommends that membership of the F.A. should be widened to cover three other interests, the professional Football Association, the Referees Association and secretaries and managers. The F.A. is also recommended to examine its constitution and committee structure and provide a more effective central policy planning committee. This is the central point giving the report substance.
There is no lack of finance with the F.A. because—aided by Government grant—in 1965 it had reserves and a surplus totalling over £300,000. In the Chester Report it is estimated that by 1970 it will have an accumulated balance of over £1 million.
Since notice of the Adjournment debate was given the question of discipline on the football field has loomed large. The paragraphs in the Report dealing with this deserve close reading and study by all connected with the game.
The fact that football produces most cases of misconduct is a matter of sheer size, as the Report rightly says. It comments on the fact that the game is possibly less dirty than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and that the number of disciplinary cases certainly has risen in recent years. But this has to be viewed against a tremendous increase in the financial rewards and inducements in the game.
I would agree with the Report that the overall picture is not a bad one. Nevertheless, I am certain that all who have the welfare of the game at heart would welcome an improvement, including the overwhelming bulk of footballers themselves. Certainly the harsh and punitive sentences recently imposed on


players in the lower leagues is not the way to tackle the problem. We often think in terms of players with big salaries, but some of these players have weekly earnings of between £10 and £20, and the sentences bear more heavily on this category. We read today, for example, of a month's suspension being imposed on a 16-year-old apprentice professional for a first offence.
There is ample evidence to prove that the present disciplinary system is outdated and unfair, and in this matter I agree completely with Bobby Moncur and Frank Clark of Newcastle United and others in the Professional Footballers' Association.
The Secretary of the Football Association has said in reply to criticisms:
We are satisfied we can defend our system with the utmost confidence. The F.A. acts strictly in accordance with its own rules and also in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
That is the viewpoint of the same person who, only a few days ago, in Rome, walked into the North Shields dressing room prior to a cup final game and proceeded to tell the team how to behave on the field—and a number of other things into the bargain. Teams from Northumberland such as Newcastle United have shown that they need no such strictures from that quarter as to their behaviour, either at home or abroad.
The Professional Footballers' Association, in evidence to the Chester Committee made two main criticisms of the present disciplinary arrangements. It claimed, rightly, that League players are on trial in disciplinary matters before a court of their own employers, and that all parties should be entitled to have legal representation in disciplinary cases, if they so wish. The association would prefer to have a disciplinary tribunal composed entirely of people interested in the game but not directly connected with any club. That is one of the points which I would like my hon. Friend to look at closely.
It is true that the Chester Report does not go all the way with these suggestions. But it says in paragraph 339:
Nevertheless the present arrangements are open to criticism. When a player's reputation and livelihood are at stake the procedure should be such that he feels he has been

given a fair hearing and that there is reasonable consistency in the penalties imposed.
It recommends that the commission appointed from members of the F.A. Disciplinary Committee to deal with "personal hearing" cases should have an independent chairman with legal qualifications, appointed after consultation with the Professional Footballers' Association and the Referees' Association at least until such time as these bodies are represented on the F.A. Council, and that all players appearing before "personal hearing" tribunals should have the right to ask for legal representation, which should be allowed at the discretion of the independent chairman.
Time does not allow me to go into detail on all the factors arising from the Report and its recommendations. It will need a much longer debate to deal with these matters. But the implementation of its recommendations on many aspects of the game are necessary. But surely in a year in which the Government have rightly paid a great deal of attention to industrial relations, the fact that the sport or business of football should be so far behind in this respect is primitive. I am told that even the joint body arranged between the Professional Footballers' Association and the football authorities, to meet at quarterly intervals to discuss matters appertaining to the good of the game, has failed to meet for over twelve months—not since the Chester Report was published.
The British Journal of Industrial Relations, in a special article on industrial relations in football, said that the peculiarities of the labour market in professional football warranted more than passing attention. This in itself is backing for the Chester Report.
The subject of crowd behaviour is, I know, the subject of another Report, which is awaited with interest. We hope that it will be dealt with more quickly than the Chester Report has been. Stiffer penalties are not the answer in themselves, desirable though they may be. Joint committees of the local police, the supporters' clubs and the club management should get together at local level, not only to consider the penalties but to find out the reasons for this behaviour before it arises.
As Chester says, there is a great need for better facilities at many grounds. If


the spectators had to work in the kind of conditions in which they watch football, there would be much more industrial unrest. Clubs which have drawn money from the game and from their loyal supporters have failed to plough back money into the facilities to which their supporters are entitled.
The 36 recommendations of the Report are too numerous to detail, but an age limit of 70 on the members of the F.A. council is surely a long overdue reform and should not need a great deal of pressure to bring about. The Football Levy Board is a controversial point which needs study, as does the transfer system.
One of the Committee's terms of reference was to inquire into means by which the game could be developed for the public good. This is why we have a Minister for Sport, and this is why we are asking him to do something about the Chester recommendations and bring the various bodies together to this end. This is a responsibility of Government, and we ask the Minister to use all his powers to achieve the aims of the Committee.
In an editorial, on 28th May, The Guardian described the Report as
… an admirable document which was bound to meet resistance from some of the all-too-amateur worthies in positions of power within the game.
But it said that the Report was overdue. We ask the Minister to have no further delay but to bring these overdue reforms into being as early as possible.

10.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blythe (Mr. Milne) for his great personal kindness in welcoming my promotion and with it, I hope, the promotion of sporting interests within the Government. I recall with nostalgia the day long ago in Birmingham when he appeared on my platform to get me elected to the City Council. I therefore have no inhibitions about welcoming what he said tonight.
I appreciate that this is the first debate on football which we have had in the House for a long time and I regret that we have only half-an-hour to spend on it.

In that time I will do my best to cover as many of the points raised as possible. Since I have not previously had a public opportunity to do so, I wish to thank very much the members of the Chester Committee, who gave two years of their lives to looking at the whole aspect of the sport and who produced what I think the House agrees is a first-class piece of thinking on the difficulties facing our national game.
I assure the House that I share their impatience that we have not made more progress, but in fact a great deal has been done. I have proceeded by asking all those concerned—that is, the English F.A., the Scottish F.A., the Welsh F.A., the English League, the Scottish League, the Professional Footballers' Association, the referees and the linesmen—to come to see me, and most of them have done so. One or two have yet to come. This week I have had a meeting with the Scottish F.A. I attempt to go through every one of the recommendations in depth and, having done that, I express my general views and I ask them, where they disagree, to offer their views, and to reconsider with their colleagues what ought to be done. There has been a tremendous amount of activity.
The first people we saw were from the Welsh Football Association whose interests, we thought, had perhaps not been looked into in such great depth as we had wished. We set up a working party with the Welsh F.A., with Sir John Lang as chairman. Good progress has been made. It has reported both to the Sports Council of Great Britain and to the Welsh F.A. and its recommendations on improving efficiency in administration and coaching are being implemented. That is one great gain. There are other gains to be put on record where other recommendations had been implemented.
I must emphasise that most of these matters are for the sporting bodies. The Government cannot instruct them. We have no power to instruct, nor would we want power to instruct, the sporting bodies. Our influence is brought about by persuasion, by co-operation, by conversation and by trying to convince them of the logic of the Chester Committee's Report. In the case of the Football League, for example, action has been taken on the suggestion that a director


of referees should be appointed. He is not called a director, but there is a man in charge of all refereeing in the Football League. The suggestion that the best referees should referee the most important matches has been acted on, although I am not certain what my former colleagues think about that, as one man recently found himself refereeing three First Division matches in a week and he got into a little hot water. But they have acted on the recommendation.
The question of insurance and pensions schemes arises from the suggested levy on transfers. I do not think that the suggestion of the Chester Committee's Report is likely to succeed—the suggestion that we ought to keep transfer fees down by putting a levy on them when they rise over a certain amount. We have the case today of Martin Peters, and we have players such as George Best of Manchester United. If players of that calibre come on to the market and are available or want to be transferred, or the clubs want to transfer them, a levy will not keep down the price paid for them. But it may be fair to say that where these big transfer fees are paid, some of that money ought to go back into the game as a whole, for the good of the game. I am glad to say that the Football League are considering whether some of that money might be used for the payment of insurance premiums and proper pensions, particularly for long-serving members of the game and of the clubs. I am encouraging them in that direction. Other recommendations, too, have been acted on.
In case hon. Members think that there is too much inertia, let me assure them that that is not so and that we are in constant communication with these bodies. The Football Association of England are this week—on their own initiative, not mine—inviting Mr. Chester to meet their executive and to discuss with them the whole of his recommendations and to exchange views with them. That rarely happens when a committee reports. These matters are frequently forgotten.
The F.A. and the Football League are to be congratulated for having taken certain steps on tax matters which affect them and us for example, by accepting the suggestion that Mr. Berkley, a tax expert who was a member of the Chester

Committee, should meet their secretaries and discuss tax matters. It is an excellent idea that they should take the advice of the man who was behind some of the Committee's recommendations. Contact of this kind with members of the Committee is to be welcomed, and hon. Members will, I am sure, echo this sentiment.
Much has been said recently by my hon. Friends about a disciplinary code for crowd behaviour and so on. I do not have time tonight to go into this matter at length, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be answering Questions in the House on the subject tomorrow. Indeed, I am somewhat tired of making statements on this subject because, personally, I do not believe that this indiscipline and crowd hooliganism has very much, if anything, to do with sport in general and football in particular. It goes much deeper than that.
It is important, however, to reiterate that it is a blot on our society. I find it deplorable, as does the Home Secretary, and we are determined, by every means in our power, to stamp it out. I am sure that hon. Members and all those concerned will support us in this endeavour. It is a Home Office matter, one of law and order, rather than a sporting matter. I know that my right hon. Friend will be answering Questions on the subject in the House.
The question of a disciplinary committee and that of players' rights has been mentioned. Hon. Members will be aware of cases that have arisen this week. This is a complicated issue. Whenever I have seen the football bodies concerned I have urged them to accept and implement the recommendations of the Chester Report. I have particularly emphasised the need for players to have the right, in my view, to be legally represented before any tribunal, if they so wish.
The F.A. considered the matter and then approached me. It mentioned some of the difficulties. The Greyhound Racing Association refused to allow one trainer, Mr. Pett, to be represented by counsel, and he took the case to court. In February 1968, Mr. Justice Cusack ruled that the Association could not hold an inquiry unless Mr. Pelt was legally represented. There was a Court of Appeal


judgment in April, 1968, on an interlocutory hearing, when Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, said:
A general principle is that every man has the right to appear by an agent.
Thus the Court of Appeal seemed to have settled the matter. However, I drew the attention of the F.A. and other bodies to that, pointing out that in my view a man was entitled to be legally represented. Since then, in February of this year, Mr. Justice Lyell discussed an action by Mr. Pett, and he upturned the decision of the Court of Appeal. He said that he preferred the previous decision; that is, of the Privy Council in the case of the University of Ceylon v. Fernando. He said that he did not feel that it dispensed with fairness, in justice, if a man was, in certain circumstances, not legally represented.
I understand that Mr. Pett has lodged notice of appeal. This is an extremely confused situation. As a layman, I certainly find it such. I understand that the F.A. has said that it will certainly take note of what I and the Chester Committee have said, but that it has been legally advised that it cannot make much progress until this confusion has been cleared up as a result of this last appeal by Mr. Pett, and this should be said in fairness.

Mr. James Davidson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that when a player's livelihood is likely to be taken from him for as much as two months, as happened in two recent cases, he should automatically have a right of appeal?

Mr. Howell: I have explained my view and pointed out the Chester recommendations on this subject. I have recommended all the various bodies to consider the matter.
There has been criticism of recent cases of players' misconduct. I do not know the circumstances, but as an old referee I know that unless one sees the referee's report and knows what happened and what was said it is difficult to make a judgment. But when the House and everyone else has said that we should knock at indiscipline we should not squeal too loudly when something is done about it. However, I am assured

that in the last three weeks there has been a marked improvement in conduct on the field and fewer misconduct reports coming in. Players are doing their very best to co-operate, and make an improvement on the field, and this we hope will spread to the terraces.
The recommendation of a levy board involves tax law, and I know that the House would not expect me to pronounce on that subject tonight. At the moment, the football authorities get their money from their fixture lists, which are copyright. They had some doubt on the subject of copyright, but I am advised that since no one has challenged two judgments those copyright decisions are now hallowed by time. They have become case law, and therefore are the law of the land until someone tries to upset them. It therefore appears that the Football League can charge as much as they like for their fixture lists. They can charge much more if they wish, but I gather that they have long-term arrangements.
In 1967–68, the copyright fixture lists brought into football a sum of £757,000. I might add that a quarter of whatever is obtained each year goes to Scotland. In 1968–69 the figure dropped considerably to £566,000, and in this present year, 1969–70, the drop will be 11·4 per cent. The figures for September show a drop of only 6·9 per cent. In other words, people are beginning to invest in the pools again, which means that more money will be going into football. The House has its own views on the subject, but that seems to bear out the claims of the pools promoters that the bigger the dividends the more likely it is that people will be drawn to betting on the pools. It looks as though the drop in the amount coming from the pools is being redressed.
The Football League tells me that it has just completed a survey of ground accommodation, and has found that in the last two years £2 million has been spent on ground improvements. This is not an insignificant matter. It is of great importance that people should be given a warm welcome and made to feel that it is all part of the social occasion. I regret that none of the money coming into football from the pools is going into more permanent improvements, but is being used for administration and ordinary revenue purposes. Endeavours


should be made to get some of that money into ground improvements.

Mr. Dan Jones: I know that my hon. Friend must finish his speech in a minute or two, but could I ask him to comment on the fact that for this short but important debate not one member of the Opposition is in his place?

Mr. Howell: I cannot comment on that, except to say that it may express their interest and sense of priority in this matter. I am glad to see the benches on the Government side are well occupied by hon. Friends who are interested in this subject. I would add that the shadow Minister of Sport told me that he was going to the Continent.
In the time left to me I cannot say much more, but I can assure the House that this is a matter of continuing importance to me. I welcome the co-operative attitude of the Players Union

and of the football authorities and other bodies. I shall continue to keep probing and pressing but, as I have said, I have no mandatory powers in regard to most of the Chester recommendations. I am glad that these matters are being investigated, but after 80 years of football we cannot expect a committee which has sat for two years to get all its report implemented in such a short time.
We are making progress, albeit slowly. I intend to see that we continue to make progress by continuing to meet all the interested parties and bringing them together, if necessary, because all of us are concerned with the health of this great game which has given so much satisfaction, not only to us but to almost the whole nation over the years.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.